Talk:Main Page/archive57

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Conservapedia needs articles for the following so as to get rid of all the red links on the Featured Article, Atheism

I have already gotten rid of maybe 20 or so redlinks, but I need some help

-- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that's superb, Deborah!--Aschlafly 19:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I created about 12 former red links via articles, and got rid of about 8 more using redirects for example redirecting Baruch Spinoza to Benedict de Spinoza -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


The Main Page "news" item that refers to Google France talks about the French being secular and links to a search of the word "atheism" on the French Google site. Two things: The French word is "athéisme" (they speak a different language over there) so I'm not really sure exactly what the point is of the search for "atheism"; also, when I click on the link the Conservapedia article is nowhere in sight. --LeopoldRex 19:06, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I noticed that too. The French Google site lists conservapedia as #14 for me. FernoKlumpLeave me a death threat!! 19:09, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
16th for me (or 14th, if you don't count the YouTube videos. -CSGuy 19:33, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Is anybody going to actually correct this? FernoKlumpLeave me a death threat!! 00:52, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

In a word, "no." Sowwies. Aziraphale 01:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Shouldn't you have a name that adheres to the naming conventions, Aziraphale?--TomMoore 01:11, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I always figured his name was Aristarchus Ziraphale. HenryS 01:16, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, maybe it is, although then I doubt this past week he would have mentioned how he was "laying low" to avoid attention on this matter.
How about it, Aziraphale?--TomMoore 01:28, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Periodically look at the view counter at the bottom of the atheism article. It is definitely one of our most viewed articles. If memory serves it is about as viewed or as viewed as our homosexuality and theory of evolution articles now. Conservative 21:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Very outragous comment

Alright, so, I am about to say something that is very outragous. However, I think that gay is, in a lot of ways, the new black. Sounds weird, right? Well, think about it. First off, gay people are descrimiated against because they are gay (homosexual marrage). Same as true with African American people and with the segragation thing. Also, people hated African Americans simply for the color of their skin. However, people hate homosexuals simply for their sexual orientation. Now, is it true that in many aspects, gay people are treated differently than African Americans people were? Yes. For instance, before the 1970's, homosexuality was considered a mental disablility. Being African American never was. However, if you were ever found out to be a homosexual, then you would lose your job, your life, et cetera. People just plainly would not hire you if you were African Americans except for things like being a janitor (very few made it into big jobs, and if they did, they were pounded so hard for being African American). So, is it racist? Not nessicerally. This is how African Americans were treated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by rocky (talk)

You realize that Alveda King (niece of MLK) and Bernice King (daughter of MLK), have both criticized homosexuality and stated that their uncle/father was against homosexuality -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Rocky, your comment is offensive to many African Americans. I was at one debate where an African American woman stood up and expressed her outrage that the homosexual movement would try to exploit and twist history in your manner. Just because people may be treated differently for their conduct does not entitle them to claim they are like the victims of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is not based on conduct, for starters.--Aschlafly 19:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Rocky, I think you're overstating it a bit. They're both civil rights issues, but the systematic discrimination against gays in the modern age is vastly reduced, even if still extant. And even at its worst, it was never comparable to slavery or the brutal legacy of Jim Crow.--TomMoore 00:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
It's not a civil rights issue. It's a moral issue. No one can change their race; it's in-born, innate and unchangeable. Moral choices, on the other hand, are a matter of personal choice and free will.
Contrary to the Determinism of the 1950s through 1970s, people are completely different from animals in terms of stimulus and response. Dogs can't help but salivate when Pavlov rings his bell, but not even Red Chinese brainwashing tactics could make people change against their will. It is free will that separates us from animals.
A leopard cannot change his spots. This is an acceptable parallel to race. I can't make myself look like Bill Cosby without extensive, expensive and ultimately foolish surgery. So we should not discriminate on skin color, nose shape, or the curliness of hair.
But choosing whether to act on homosexual desires is ultimately a moral decision. Just as a heterosexual man can decide whether to stare at a woman's figure or glance away.
There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is a fixed orientation. Environment and personal choice are clearly in play here, and I think just about all scientists agree. --Ed Poor Talk 10:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Darwin and Hitler

The news item on the main page - yet another classic example of quote mining, just so you are aware. To take it from the top, Darwin does, indeed, say, as the article suggests, 'It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.' However, he then goes onto say, 'The aid which we feel impelled to give the helpless is mainly the incidental result of the instinct of sympathy...Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature', and also says, 'we must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.' So even Darwin was not a proponent of social Darwinism.

What article or news item is this related to? I don't recall any conservative source saying that Darwin himself supported Social Darwinism. Not even "Expelled" makes this claim. Rather, it is racists like the supporters of Eugenics who abused Darwin's theory to justify their aims. I think you're setting up a strawman here. --Ed Poor Talk 10:18, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, it is in reference to the one entitled 'Darwin and Hitler'. The article linked to tries to make the connection of 'Darwinism' and the Holocaust by, as I pointed out, quote mining Darwin. Unfortunately, 'Darwinism', or, to be accurate about what it is, the original form of the Theory of Evolution, needs to be severely misinterpreted and misunderstood in order to get anything even remotely approaching the Holocaust. There's a certain other website I have found, which, apparantly, no-one here is allowed to name, but certain people can send cryptic messages to that has a rather detailed explanation of exactly how it needs to be misinterpreted in it's page about Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. Urushnor2 16:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Nobody's saying that Darwinism=Holocaust. The latter is based, in part, on the former, but they are not equivalents. So your comment that the ToE needs to be severely misinterpreted and misunderstood in order to get anything approaching the holocaust appears to be a straw-man argument. The external arguments you refer to are quibbling over semantics and side issues. Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

The second quote is about the most blatent quotemine I have ever seen. The full quote, including the words the article replaced with ellipses is, 'If the various checks specified in the last two paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate then the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world.' He then goes onto say, 'We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more at one time than another.' If you read the 'last two paragraphs', it actually details several such checks that already existed at the time in civilised societies. In other words, according to him, no action needed to be taken, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible to decide what precise action to take in order to 'progress the civilisation'.

I don't get what you are arguing here. Do you agree or disagree with the idea that Darwin intended to say that he favored Eugenics, i.e., the forcible elimination of "inferior" human beings by sterilization or euthanasia? (I have no opinion on this, I'm really asking, because I'm not familiar with Darwin's social philosophy.). --Ed Poor Talk 10:22, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
I disagree, and I am pointing out that the linked article attempts to make this case by an extremely blatent quotemine. Urushnor2 16:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't see it being out of context (if that's what you mean by "quotemine") at all. That Darwin was uncomfortable with the implications of his theory doesn't change what his theory is saying. The article even points out that "tried to soften" the implications. Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

As for the third quote, the quote is accurate, and even the context, but the article fails to show where Darwin advocated or applauded such actions, and, if you read the actual book, he is referring to 'savage nations' here, not 'civilised nations'. The whole basis of the Holocaust, if you accept the idea it was based on Darwin's writings, was to exterminate 'savage races', so they would have realised they would therefore need to exterminate themselves, going by this quote. The fourth quote is, I think, accurate, but the simple fact is that here, Darwin was wrong. He believed, as practically everyone did, in his time, that black people were a savage, inferior race of people. Despite this, there is evidence from his writings that he advocated the gentle treatment of these 'savage races', despite their supposed inferiority. We now know that black people are, in fact, simply people who have evolved differently from white people. In essence, it is work done on the basis of his theory that proved his own statements here to be incorrect. I will not comment on Hitler's quote, as I have not read Mein Kampf, nor have any desire to, but, if the article continues on in the same quality of journalism, then it's conclusions and assertions are, let's just say, rather suspect. Urushnor 09:17, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your imputation is suspect. If you think any modern writer (or filmmaker!) believes, as you put it, that "the [idea of the] Holocaust was based on Darwin's writings", then I wish you would identify that person.
Benjamin Wiker in the article linked to from the news item in question. Going by various reviews of Expelled, so does Ben Stein. Urushnor2 16:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Your argument about the third quote appears to be another straw-man. The article is saying that there is a clear link; that Darwin's theory supports eugenics, not that Darwin himself is actually advocating a program of eugenics. As for him being "wrong" in the fourth quote, so what? He was wrong about his entire theory, but that's not the point: the point is that it provided a basis for the holocaust, as others have acknowledged, including evolutionist and anti-Nazi Sir Arthur Keith[1]. Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
The idea of the Holocaust came entirely from Adolf Hitler. Whether he found inspiration (?!) for his plan in Eugenics or Social Darwinism is interesting, of course. But if Darwin was wrong about the inherent inferiority of black people (as you and I seem to agree here), then it looks like Hitler was using one of Darwin's incorrect ideas to justify the Holocaust. --Ed Poor Talk 10:30, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, the article linked to seems to go to some pains to link Darwin and Hitler through evolution itself. Unfortunately, to those who are familiar with what Darwin actually wrote, or goes as far as simply looking up the quotes in question, it is fairly obvious how much hogwash their article actually is. Incidentally, I made an error above, which I've now corrected. I referred to the third quote, but then referred to the next quote as also being 'the third quote'. Apologies if you were confused.
Oh, and, excuse the 'sock', but, as with several of the rules here, the '90/10 rule' (which I am apparantly blocked for being in breach of) seems to sometimes be used as an excuse for censorship, to put it bluntly. As many of the self-same people who use this rule in this manner argue against 'liberal censorship', I fail to see how they can justify their own 'conservative censorship'. Urushnor2 16:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Give it up, Urushnor2. Darwin and Hitler believed in "survival of the fittest" by human races. There's no denying it.
The Theory of Evolution states that life evolved by beneficial genetic features arising, giving advantages to certain creatures, and thus those creatures breeding more than creatures without those features, and these repeated small changes piling on top of each other causing species to spread from one species into several different species, as different members of the 'parent' species evolve to adapt to the different situations and conditions they find themselves in, typically over a great period of time, in an entirely natural process. The Nazi regime believed in 'purifying' the 'Aryan race' (which, incidentally, is probably a myth), in just a few generations, by the enforced killing, segregation and/or sterilization of anyone they deemed to be 'impure' or 'non-Aryan', regardless of the situations or conditions those people were in, in a decidedly unnatural process. I trust you can see the differences between the two? Urushnor2 19:22, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Something else I've just realised - as I recall, the Nazis were attempting to go back to the 'Aryan race' that they believed existed at some point in the past. If my recollection is correct, this actually means that there is a fairly strong case to argue that the Nazis were, in fact, trying to reverse evolution, not advance it. Urushnor2 19:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Your description of evolution overlooks the aspect that evolution only proceeds on the back of the deaths of the less fit. The fitter survive at the expense of the less fit because there is competition for the limited supply of resources. Therefore, the only significant difference I see between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's ideas is that Hitler was trying to not leave evolution to nature, but to help it along. Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
As to our 90/10 rule, it exists because we're here to learn, not to talk, talk, talk. Wikipedia is a better home for those who love to hear themselves talk.--Aschlafly 18:21, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Really? You chose the wrong format for your encyclopedia then. The whole idea of a wiki is that the ordinary editors provide the information by making edits, discussing them, and also discussing how to improve articles generally/the whole wiki/anything else, which you dismiss as 'talk, talk, talk'. What you really want is just an ordinary website. That way, you dictate the information, or can grant the select few who can provide what you regard as acceptable information the ability to do so (such as the people who are currently the sysops here), then the people who are, as you say, 'here to learn', can only read the information in order to learn from it. Urushnor2 19:22, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
I thought Conservapedia was here to attack Wikipedia, Wikipedia users, Wikipedia article content, and Wikipedia administrators. See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia and Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. --Elkman 18:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Criticizing the bias on Wikipedia is a small percentage of the activity and learning here.--Aschlafly 18:45, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I wrote an article about this subject here. It pretty much answers Andy's "arguments."-Scw 18:49, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

It does no such thing, particularly given that Andy has hardly made any arguments here. And the blog piece itself is mainly an argument that an idea cannot be held responsible for the actions of the idea's followers, which is an argument that tries to say that ideas don't have consequences, when they clearly do, and is hypocritical when those same people argue that a religion is responsible for the actions of the religion's followers, regardless of whether those followers are actually acting consistently with their religion. It also incorrectly tries to invoke Godwin's "law" (not a law at all, but a bit of rhetoric) in order to dismiss the connection. Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
There are only three possibilities:
  1. Hitler based the Holocaust entirely on Darwin (and on nothing else!)
  2. Hitler based the Holocaust on other ideas such as anti-semitism, while also using Darwin's natural selection as a justification
  3. Hitler and the Holocaust were completely unrelated to any of Darwin's ideas.
For those who assert #3, the movie "Expelled" will come as a shock. They may even profess outrage, but it's all a sham, because ...
The movie does not make point #1 - in fact, no one on earth ever has! Rather, the movie makes point #2.
Darwinism provides some of the justification for the Holocaust, although the movie is careful to point out that the Holocaust is not Darwin's fault. Critics of the movie seem to be hoping to get a lot of mileage out of blurring this distinction. --Ed Poor Talk 00:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Putting any of the blame for the atrocities committed by Hitler on Darwin and his ideas is pure madness. Are we going to blame the Wright Brothers for 9/11? Should they shoulder some of the blame because their invention was used to kill 3000 people? Should the people of 14th century China shoulder part of the blame for the thousand (and thousands and thousands) of gun murders that occur every year in the U.S. alone?
In the same respect, shouldn't Christianity also shoulder part of the blame for Hitler and his mad little campaign of genocide? He had God in his mind when he was writing 'Mein Kampf'.
The answers to these questions is "No." We can't blame X on Y because the perpetrator of Y had X in his mind when it was being done. Hitler would have killed and tortured millions whether Darwin was even born or not and to assert the premise that Darwin is to blame, in any way, is laughable to the point of being ridiculous.--Iconoclastbeggar 15:32, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, all I can say is that it appears my point has been proven. Most of the responses above seem to be trying to defend the idea put forth in the article, that evolution leads to eugenics or the Holocaust. Philip, if you actually understood what evolution was, you would realise that the only real reason that Darwin had to be 'uncomfortable with the implications of his theory' was the idea that black people would become extinct, in an entirely natural process, as he believed they were less evolved versions of white people, not because his theory implied we should go out and kill all black folk, as it would need to imply in order for Hitler to base the Holocaust on it. You state that evolution is advanced on the backs of the deaths of the less evolved creatures. Well, that's accurate, but only in an indirect way - the more evolved creatures do not turn around and kill the less evolved ones, they cause them to naturally die out and become extinct. Oh, and just to clarify - when you have to cherry-pick particular parts of a passage, and, as in this case, even cherry-pick particular words from a sentence, instead of just quoting the whole thing in context, in order to try to make your case, that's a quotemine. As for your comment, 'As for him being "wrong" in the fourth quote, so what?', you missed my point. The idea of black people being 'inferior' was Darwin misidentifying the evolutionary role of black people due to the idea, widespread at the time, that black people were inherently inferior. It was further work done on the basis of Darwin's own theory that, basically, allowed us to definitively prove that the one and only difference between a black person and a white person is the color of their skin, and he was therefore wrong here. As for the idea, advanced both by you and Ed Poor, that Expelled was basically saying that Hitler only used 'Darwinism' as a justification for the Holocaust, then I have to ask the question - why did Expelled even refer to that, given the film's purported aim? If 'Darwinism' was only used as a 'justification', that utterly fails to challenge the validity of evolution, or show how evolution was 'stifling' ID. Considering all the reviews I have seen all agree that a significant chunk of screen time is devoted to this topic, it seems a massive waste of time and effort in order to make a point that has little or no bearing on the purpose of the film. It seems very clear to me that this serves no purpose except as an attempt to demonize evolution by trying to associate it with Hitler and the Holocaust (and, incidentally, this means the call of Godwin's Law in Scw's blog is a correct one). Of course, I'd be interested to see how Expelled addresses certain little facts, such as one of the kinds of literature that was specifically searched out by the Nazis for the purpose of burning was actually works on evolution, but I guess I'm going to have to wait until I see the film to find that out. Urushnor2 15:59, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

We should move this debate to Conservapedia:How are evolution and the Holocaust related? As for the content of articles in this encyclopedia, it would be interesting to our readers to present a range of views. I'd like to suspend the debate on this page and give writing assignments to all interested parties. Note: anyone continuing to post about Darwin and Hitler on this page will given a writing assignment or required to submit a writing plan.
I suggest that those familiar with the views of Evolutionists and their attitude toward the Holocaust begin with that linkage. For example, I gather most Evolutionists feel that Darwin's ideas are utterly unrelated to Social Darwinism (despite the name) and Eugenics. Then there are writers such as Hannah Arendt who feel that Darwinism is (at least indirectly) related to the sterilizatinos and mass murders carried out by the Nazis. (Let's not forget to include repudiations of Arendt's views by Jewish groups such as the ADL - which hates to see anyone "use" the Holocaust to make any point other than "never again". --Ed Poor Talk 16:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT)


Just yesterday I read the latest issue of Imprimis, which gave a great essay on how ineffective the U.N. is. I see the headline today, and I'm thrilled! They're going to revamp the whole organization?! Wow, an overhaul is just what the incompetent United Nations needs; right now it can't even decide what a terrorist is.

Oh, they're merely redoing the building. What? Why do we want this building in New York anyway? Prime real-estate, ya'know - maybe good for an office building or Olympic Stadium or something. Why do we spend all this money so a third world ambassador came come to our city and break our parking laws? (Did you know their exempt from traffic tickets? Many other crimes they commit here they can get away with scott free). We ought to be tearing this building down: it's 60 years old, and what has it done for us within that time? --S₮ёVeN 09:44, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah! I mean, what have they done in the world that was any good other than in the Congo, Liberia, Angola, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Burundi, El Salvador, Haiti, Guatemala, Cambodia, East Timor, Kosovo, Croatia, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Darfur, and Etrirea among others? And I mean aside from their other huge humanitarian donations and health initiatives that have done things like supply millions with badly-needed mosquito nets?! And help coordinate a worldwide criminal-tracking system to increase the apprehension and capture of those who flee their countries? They're jerks, let's get rid of them.--TomMoore 14:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Breaking news suggestion: 1960s decade of hate, not love

History Professor Gerard De Groot, of St Andrews University, decries leftist nostalgia for the 1960s, arguing instead that the so-called 'decade of love' instead was marked by "hatred, murder, greed, dangerous drugs, needless deaths, ethnic cleansing".

Bugler 09:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Breaking news suggestion:Bolivian province declares independence of Leftist government

Following a popular referendum, the people of Santa Cruz province, Bolivia, have voted to declare autonomy from the leftist government of Evo Morales. Further referendums, in the provinces of Beni, Pando and Tarija, are likely to have similar outcomes. Morales has dismissed these manifestations of democracy.

Bugler 09:59, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Both of your suggestions are superb, and both have been posted. I see signs of a future Sysop in you!--Aschlafly 10:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! Bugler 10:26, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

RIP Mildred Loving

I think a tribute to this brave woman should appear on the front page.

Help us out by telling us who she is, if this is serious.--Aschlafly 11:05, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Seriously? You don't know? And you "teach"? That is disgraceful. You ought to be ashamed. --KimSell 11:26, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Loving 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 11:10, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
KimSell, you've demonstrated liberal style point #35: tell your adversary that he should "be ashamed." Barack Obama tried that stunt against Hillary Clinton recently. Shame! Shame! It's amazing how often liberals invoke that ... about everyone except their own.--Aschlafly 11:53, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I've heard conservative talk show hosts, such as Chris Baker and Jason Lewis of KTLK-FM, tell liberals that they should be ashamed of their positions. It's not entirely a liberal thing. --Elkman 17:28, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Ashclafly, instead of pointing out "Liberal Style" as a way to demean someone without addressing the topic at hand (which could be described as "Conservative Style" if you really wanted to, since Liberal Style is a propaganda farce since, as Elkman pointed out, is a technique that conservatives use as well), you could have acknowledged something about Mildred Loving since KimSell provided a link. In the future, please address the point at hand first and then try to discredit the person, but please keep in mind that conservatives are far from innocent in regards to using off-topic strategies to get a foothold in debate as you have demonstrated. Quite frankly, sir, you reminded me of that pot and kettle cliche. --[Capolavoro046]--Capolavoro046 19:52, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

pipes and links

I discovered that [[User:Deborah|]] is the same as [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] that [[Boulder (city)|]] is the same as [[Boulder (city)|Boulder]] that [[Buffalo, New York|]] is the same as [[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]]

what is this called and how does one explain this to a beginner to Conservapedia -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I want to mention something about this on Help:How to Code and yes I already knew that [[George Washington|WXYZ]] worked

Also can a link to Help:How to Code be added to the welcome template -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Please create a page called Help:Pipes and links. --Ed Poor Talk 10:00, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

UW and the pro-life display

I've been impressed with the quality of "In the News" items recently (good job Dean and Andy!). However, as a UW-Madison student I'd just like to point out that the attack on the pro-life group happened at UW-Steven's Point, but the headline links to UW-Madison (part of the same UW system, yes, but two different schools separated both ideologically and geographically). I bring this up because I'd like to think that students at my campus, while known for being very liberal, wouldn't stoop to an attack like this; the Sterling Hall bombing is way behind us. Jinkas 20:35, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Andy! Jinkas 20:37, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton Wins Indiana Easily

Easily? With 75% of precints reporting reporting from Indiana, both MSNBC and CNN are still saying "Too close to call". She'll probably wind up winning Indiana, but I don't think the term "easily" applies here.--Frey 21:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

You're right. Good point, and I've changed the headline accordingly. The 10-point margin for Hillary is down to a 4-point margin, and who knows what Chicago-style ballot stuffing by Democrats in Gary will still yield!--Aschlafly 23:03, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, didn't know about the initial ten-point margin. At first, I thought maybe that Conservapedia was doing its part for Operation Chaos.--Frey 23:46, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

About time

This is probably the worst thing about the site. On Conservapedia, I never found any critizism of the blatant pornagraphic images Wikipedia displays. I'm glad someone finally exposed the abominations of Wikipedia. The best thing Conservapedia has goning for it is that it is "family friendly." --S₮ёVeN 10:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia has criticized the porno on Wikipedia. see #67 in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. "One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given."
Reference #110 - "Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content."
I agree that Conservapedia is much more "family friendly." --DeanSformerly Crocoite 11:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your comments, Steven and Dean. Much appreciated.--Aschlafly 11:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I went onto Conservapedia today to check the daily news as I do everyday and was completely shocked when I saw this headline, and even more when I read the article on worldnetdaily! This is yet another perfect example that shows how horrible Wikipedia is. Yet what shocked me even more was the casual, lighthearted response the head of communications for the Wikimedia foundation Jay Walsh gave! This is dealing with explicit porn that millions upon millions of children have access to whenever they want, and all he has to say about is "that's kind of a reality of the 21st century." Hopefully this article will open people's eyes about the filthiness of Wikipedia! And thanks, aschlafly, for continually keeping everyone updated with your outstanding "In the News" section! DeborahB. 13:56, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

A mere repository of images?

The filthyness of Wikipedia...ok. Most of the images referenced in the WorldNetDaily article you are discussing are not in actual articles, but are stored on Wikimedia Commons, which is merely a media depository that editors of Wikipedia use to get images of all kinds from for use in articles they are working on. Most people who go to Wikipedia will never go to Wikimedia Commons. Only serious editors tend to use it. It's kind like a library of images, if you will. It doesn't make Wikipedia evil or anything. And as far as just plain nude photos go...what's inherently wrong with that? If God made humans, why would he have a problem with his work being seen? TNS 20:34, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

As a former Wikipedian who still has an account on that project, I dispute your notion. The images in Commons are well-categorized, so that someone can find images on any subject, edifying or non-, with ease. Furthermore, how "serious" does an editor have to be to write an article on an off-color subject?
At a minimum, an administration that allows "dangling images," and especially images of that kind, to remain on their database under any linkages whatever, is not doing its job. And at maximum, I should like to know how you can possibly determine that "most of the images...are not in actual articles." Are not all images in Wikimedia Commons? How, then, do you know how many articles link to any given images?
In any event, what you have written reads like, "I read Playboy for the interviews." Here again, speaking as a formerly active Wikipedian, I will not contribute one word, one byte, or even one bit to a project that hosts that kind of content, for the same reason that I will not walk into a bar and grill even if only to order a hamburger.--TerryHTalk 20:55, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Terry, what I meant by "Most people who go to Wikipedia will never go to Wikimedia Commons" is that if a person goes to, and uses it to go to an article, and all they do is read articles ( in leiu of editing) on wikipedia, they will likely never go to Wikimedia Commons since they will likely never find it. Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are two different things. There's no links to Commons on the main Wikipedia page, so they would never find it anyway, assuming all they did was read articles. That's true for casual users, anyway. "Are not all images in Wikimedia Commons? How, then, do you know how many articles link to any given images? " Yes, all images are in Wikimedia Commons, but not all images that are in the Commons (not anywhere near it in fact), are used in Wikipedia articles. I know this from personal experience, and you can verify it yourself (this applies to any type of image, not just inappropriate ones). TNS 21:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Here is a link to Wikimedia Commons, so you can see what I'm talking about. TNS 21:08, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I checked out Wikipedia traffic once and found that many of the high-traffic sites are obscenity-based or Pokemon-type sites. It's an awful mixture but that drives Wikipedia traffic. Worse, Wikipedia won't admit it. I've been hit with obscene images on Wikipedia without expecting it, as I expect many others have. That's not something we want to happen to kids ... or to anyone.--Aschlafly 21:11, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
7 of your 10 most popular articles are on homosexuality, what does that say about what is driving your traffic? DanielB 21:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
It says nothing to the astute. Regardless, those entries do not attract traffic by using obscene images.--Aschlafly 22:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Interesting use the word astute there. The MacQuarie Concise Dictionary give the first definition of astute "of keen penetration" again saying something. DanielB 22:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, how does Wikipedia's most popular pages indicate what drives it's traffic, but the same isn't true for Conservapedia? Anyway, considering that by far porn sites are the most visited portion of the Internet, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the same is true on Wikipedia. What else could reasonably be expected? And I find it very hard to believe that the "adult" pages on Wikipedia drive traffic with their images. If someone wants to see images like that, they could just Google what they're looking for and find it more quickly. TNS 22:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

News item suggestion - an evangellical manifesto

U.S. evangelicals call for step back from politics

A group of U.S. evangelical leaders called on Wednesday for a pullback from party politics so that followers would not become "useful idiots" exploited for partisan gain.

Alternative links:

With none of the candidates being the first, second, third, or probably even fourth or fifth choices based on purely religious criteria, and likewise none of the candidates pandering to religion as has been done in the past, this is an excellent opportunity for the evangelical block to remove itself from following one party line and returning to the key issues of what it means to be a Christian. In particular, its not about politics (see Matthew 22:21). The summary lists quite clearly what it means to be a Christian:

  1. Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.
  2. The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.
  3. Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
  4. New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.
  5. The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.
  6. The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.
  7. The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.

Once again from the summary:

... We repudiate the two extremes that define the present culture wars in the United States. On one side, we repudiate the partisans of a sacred public square, those who would continue to give one religion a preferred place in public life.

In a diverse society, it will always be unjust and unworkable to privilege one religion. We are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths. We are firmly opposed to theocracy. And we have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose beliefs and behavior on anyone. We believe in persuasion.

On the other side, we repudiate the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. This position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens, who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are.

We are committed to a civil public square – a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well. Every right we assert for ourselves as Christians is a right we defend for all others.

It is in the very least interesting reading. It also provides the opportunity to foster meaningful discussion about the role of religion in politics. --Rutm 15:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

blocking policies

I have noticed that probably most of the current users are probably blocked and the users who are not blocked are typically inactive, could blocking policies be a little more lenient for example not just blocking users with the same ip as a vandal if that user appears to be reformed? -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also could we stop infinitely blocking people and instead at the most give a block at most of 5 years -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I think for minor vandals such as putting University of Texas sucks on the University of Texas should be blocked for maybe a week not 5 years and then we should try to explain the user why not to do this and instead convince this person to do quality edits -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure that this is the place to discuss this, but... If a person puts "Texas sucks" on an article, that is clearly a deliberate attempt to vandalise, not a misguided edit or an inappropriate ideological edit. I agree that some blocks are too long, but in the case of this example, I don't have a problem with making it a long one. Philip J. Rayment 08:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Blocking is meant to protect our site and keep it clear for constructive users. That being said, it is common that once a user has been blocked that they can discuss their situation with the blocking party and reach an understanding that allows them to get their rights restored. It appears this method works out best. Learn together 12:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
I believe what Deborah is implying is that this method doesn't necessarily "work best." It has a result; it has to, right? Besides which, as was recently discussed on Aschlafly's talk page, several high-blocking sysops have not had a functioning email. Despite Ed Poor's suggestion that this isn't a problem because they can just email him, I think it's safe to say that when the site's template says "contact the blocking sysop," and that sysop is unreachable, a pretty clear "go away" message is sent.
Not that telling blocked people to go away is necessarily a bad thing, but it's a MIXED message to block someone for anything less than "infinite" while sending them a get-lost signal. Regards, Aziraphale 12:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia pron

[Deliberately misspelled "porn" in the subject because my filter blocks pages because of certain words in the URLs.]

The one thing that's not been mentioned here or on WND about Wikipedia's pornography is that quite a bit of it is self-made images produced by sick exhibitionists. There's a discussion about this issue on "The Wikipedia Review" forum here, which ironically proves in the initial issue that there actually are things that Jimbo Wales will censor from Wikipedia.

Incidentally, if you're looking for a good filter that will block objectionable pages on Wikipedia but not others, try K9 by Blue Coat here. Jinxmchue 01:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm staying away from the topic about pornography, but I do agree that there's a large number of amateur photographs. Granted that taking a photo yourself is one way to avoid copyright infringements, the quality and accuracy of the photographs might be in question. On a web page such as "Scabies" on Wikipedia, a group of photos were taken to illustrate disease progression and treatment - but there's no way to verify that the pictures were indeed of scabies (even if the photographer had it diagnosed and treated, and had every good intention at heart). ATang 10:27, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, like this picture of a house in Minneapolis. Where does the chimney stop and the sky begin? --Elkman 11:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
And while we're on the topic of pictures: why are photographs of individuals upon whom people have a negative view always are of terrible quality / pose? For example, on Wikipedia's page about Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly's picture is of poor quality, while on Wikipedia's page about itself, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger has high quality ones.
And as a contrast, Conservapedia's page on Michael Moore has a photo of him "ranting", which clearly isn't necessary.
All this reminds me of those "Celebrity News" TV shows that keeps showing mugshots of arrested stars, just to drive home the point that they've fallen, etc. (The power of imagery...)
ATang 12:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
The picture of Andrew Schlafly on Wikipedia is the only one that he has released into the public domain or creative commons, thus allowing Wikipedia to use it. Conservpedia uses the same image - Image:ASchlafly.JPG. If there was a better one with similar lack of licensing restrictions, I am fairly sure that Wikipedia would use it. --Rutm 13:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
There were other examples of course, such as the article on astronaut Lisa Nowak. Her mugshot after her arrest was on her article for a while (but not any more). Bottom line is: these photos don't serve too much purpose except to garner negative opinion from readers, and they do not belong in _any_ encyclopedia. ATang 13:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
And they are replaced as a better one is made available. You cannot fault Wikipedia for using the only available photograph, released by the person who the photo is of, and used on this site. --Rutm 13:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Andy's photo is just an example, and I conceded the point after learning that that was the only one he released into the public. The point regarding Nowak and Moore remains - they are not the only photographs available. I'm not trying to fault the articles with poor photographs because of a problem in availability; I'm criticizing the ones who intentionally choose to use a bad photograph to incite negative emotions. (Think of this as the flip-side to advertisements, which I'm not a huge fan of either) ATang 14:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Number of Articles

I was just going to check how many articles the site has now but the main page doesn't seem to say so any more. Anyone know why this is? Rockthecasbah 13:09, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Just look on the statistics page for the running count. The silly "more must be better" mentality of Wikipedia is not the purpose here. Our goal has always been conciseness, especially in entries (and unlike Wikipedia).--Aschlafly 13:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
So, in other words, the site isn't growing rapidly anymore? AustinK 19:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

We are rapidly growing in insight, and in benefiting those who have open minds. We don't buy into the nonsense that "more must be better" of the biased Wikipedia, which leaves many readers more confused afterwards.--Aschlafly 20:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
The count was posted on the front page before, so I don't understand why that would change if the goal of conciseness has always been the same. I don't think it matters if the number is growing rapidly or not, I just think it's a good thing to have on the front page for visitors to have just a small indicator of the breadth of information here. Rockthecasbah 20:09, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Article count beyond a certain critical mass (say 20,000 entries) doesn't have any particular significance. People who are interested can look at the statistics. But fewer than 20,000 entries, and perhaps fewer than 10,000 entries, are of any value to 99% of visitors.--Aschlafly 20:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Respectful question

What is the meaning of the term "verifiable" in the Conservapedia Commandments? --Blazes "To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." -Woody Allen 21:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Prove that I am not Jesus Christ

Please remember that outrage and personal umbrage do not suffice. You must demonstrate that I am not the second coming.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazes (talk)

You've already proven it yourself by your comment. Case closed.--Aschlafly 21:54, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
What is the "proof" to which you refer? Is it that Jesus Christ could not form a sentence of this type or some other form of self-evident proof that does not seem apparent from such a simple query?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazes (talk)
The Bible gives some details of the second coming, such as below, and you don't fit the description.

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other Matthew 24:30-31 (NIV)

Well, the last time I checked, there were no nations at all without war, familne, drought or poverty of any sort. Oh wait, that's probably because they're not as god fearing as the should be. IDontBelieveInGod 06:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, the last time I checked, there were no nations that were as God-fearing as they should be, so your hypothesis seems to hold up! Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
So when a nation becomes completely and utterly god-fearing will they then be free of all worldy ailments. Except fear. Lots and lots of terrifying fear. IDontBelieveInGod 06:49, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
As far as your first sentence is concerned, do you have evidence that this is not the case?
As for the remainder, "God-fearing" has more to do with respect and awe than with being scared, and the only reason to be terrified is if one is rejecting God, just like one caught in a dangerous situation should be terrified if they reject the help offered.
Philip J. Rayment 08:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Fear works very well for authoritarians. However, it doesn't work well at all with the people governed by those authoritarians, regardless of whether or not you bring the figure of God into the situation. No nation or people should have to fear somthing that they don't need to fear, namely the concept of God. Kilmarnock 12:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I think you've missed the point about what "fear" means. Philip J. Rayment 00:52, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I understand what you mean, although "God fearing" can be interpreted literally, too. Either way, "respect and awe" for God by a government and literal "fear" of God by a government is unethical to the people. Those who don't believe in God should not have to bear the burden of having to "fear" Him or have "respect and awe" for Him. That is the purpose of freedom of religion (and being non-religious is included in that doctrine). Kilmarnock 02:21, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
What is "unethical" about respecting the Creator of us all? Not believing in God does not change the fact of his existence, and I said nothing about forcing people to believe anything. Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
What is unethical is making people fear something that they don't believe or even imposing it on the government. As I said at the Atheism vs. Pastafarianism debate (which I have yet to see a response), the concept of God is a personal belief system. And personal belief systems should be left out of the government. I could just as well say that believing in God doesn't change the fact that He doesn't exist and there is no way we can be absolutely certain if He exists or even if He wants us to fear Him. Thus, bringing the "fear" into the nation is unethical. Kilmarnock 13:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I've got a reply for the Pastafarianism discussion partly prepared. It will be finished and posted in due course.
You appear to believe that God is nothing more than an invention of man, and therefore "a personal belief". But if God actually exists (as described in the Bible), what then? That is the point of my question. And I wasn't talking about "making" people fear something. Do you "make" people believe that Australia exists? No. Do you treat Australia's existence as "a belief system" and therefore expect the Government to not presume that Australia exists? Of course not. So why is it different with God? And if you are inclined to say "because Australia's existence is testable" or something along that line, please read my essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia first.
Yes, you could just as well say that believing in God doesn't change the fact that He doesn't exist, except that that point would only be valid if He doesn't exist. Of course the same applies to my point, but you are presuming my point to be wrong without demonstrating it.
Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
At this point, it is indefinite as to whether humanity can know if God exists or not. Thus, one can only subscribe to the personal belief as to whether or not God does exist. We "make" people believe that Australia exists because we, as humans have numerous eyewitness accounts (not to mention the millions that live there). The comparison between a continent that has been inhabited for thousands of years and has millions of inhabitants now cannot compare to the concept of God which cannot be verified simply by seeing God, touching God, or living on God for that matter. Something which can be done for Australia but not for God. Since the evidence for Australia's existence is incontrovertible, it's should be known as an indisputable and proven fact. Since the evidence for God is theoretical and disputable, it should not be known as a fact and thus should not be imposed on governmental policies. You say that my point that God doesn't exist would only be valid if He didn't exist may just as well be refuted by me saying that your point that my point would be invalid if God actually did exists. You first must prove the existence of God as an indisputable and verifiable fact. Otherwise, there is no reason to argue as to whether or not a nation should fear something that for all they know, may not even exist. Kilmarnock 01:12, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that it is indefinite as to whether humanity can know if God exists or not. We have numerous personal accounts of people who have met God, so that counters that comment. I agree that the actual evidence for Australia is different to the evidence for God, but I disagree that the evidence for God is so weak that it is reduced to personal belief. Did you actually read the link I gave you? Why must I first prove God as an indisputable and verifiable fact before you prove the opposite? Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Subjective accounts cannot be verified. Anyone can claim to "meet God", that doesn't mean they actually did. Close encounters of the third kind have been recorded for years, but they are merely subjective and cannot be verified as indisputable. Storytelling, especially has such an influence on humans to create outlandish stories that they were a part of unusual phenomenal encounters (e.g. cryptids, extraterrestrials, deities, etc.). Are you referring to the link to "Creation on the Web"? Because I did read it. My point is that you first must prove the existence of God before you argue a sub-topic that is vital to knowing that he exists (i.e. whether or not nations should be God-fearing). Kilmarnock 01:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
No, not that link, the one to my essay.
You were the one that claimed that Australia's existence could be known because of personal accounts, but you reject the same evidence as subjective when it comes to God.
Your argument that countries should not be God-fearing is based on the claim that God doesn't exist, but you haven't proved that, so you haven't answered my question as to why I should prove God before you prove the opposite.
Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I did read the essay. The personal accounts of people encountering deities, cryptids, and extraterrestrials are just stories that we as a civilisation cannot verify. Yet, millions upon millions of people have been to Australia, have seen Australia, have numerous and incontrovertible documentation about Australia, and who live in Australia. The comparison betwen a first person account of something that cannot be verified and the existence of a continent are nowhere near being in the same league. My argument that nations shouldn't be God-fearing is based on the argument that you must prove incontrovertibly that God exists with enough evidence such as the evidence frovided for the incontrovertible existence of Australia. And proving that it doesn't exist is not an excuse. Kilmarnock 11:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
"I did read the essay.": Then why are you continuing to talk about "incontrovertible proof"?
"The personal accounts of people encountering deities, cryptids, and extraterrestrials are just stories that we as a civilisation cannot verify.": Why not? If a person claims that an alien medically examined them, it should be possible to verify (or fail to verify). If a person claims that God has changed their life in some way, that should be possible to verify.
"Yet, millions upon millions of people have been to Australia, have seen Australia, have numerous and incontrovertible documentation about Australia, and who live in Australia.": So now you're changing what evidence you would accept! Originally, all you said was "numerous eyewitness accounts". Now that I suggest that the same is possible for the existence of God, you add other requirements! This suggests that it is not the evidence that is the problem, but your ideology that says that you must argue however you can to avoid accepting God's existence.
"The comparison between a first person account of something that cannot be verified and the existence of a continent are nowhere near being in the same league.": I've already said that I agree that the evidence for Australia is different to the evidence for God, but as my essay points out, that doesn't mean that the evidence for God is insufficient.
"My argument that nations shouldn't be God-fearing is based on the argument that you must prove incontrovertibly that God exists with enough evidence such as the evidence provided for the incontrovertible existence of Australia.": I know that is your argument, but that doesn't answer why I have to prove His existence rather than you having to prove His non-existence. Or, alternatively, why I have to incontrovertibly prove His existence rather than just show that it's more likely than His non-existence.
"And proving that it doesn't exist is not an excuse.": Huh?
Philip J. Rayment 03:02, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
The essay doesn't demonstrate that a degree of proof being incontrovertible is impossible. Such facts as the existence of Australia are incontrovertible. But taking in the idea that an extraterrestrial has possibly medically examined a human, how do you verify such a claim? And the same applies to encountering a deity or a cryptid; how do you verify the claim?
No, I am not changing the evidence. You left out the text "(not to mention the millions that live there)" which came right after my statement. So my evidence is basically the same! I smell a straw man argument. So no, I didn't add other requirements. They were already there. Nor does this suggest that evidence is the problem or my ideology says I must argue however I can to accept God's existence which is just plain wrong. You have no prerequisite knowledge to make a judgement about my ideology as you have absolutely no idea what it is.
Your essay neither describes the evidence for the existence of God as sufficient.
In essence, you should prove His existence before accepting the fact that He exists. But the point of showing that it is more likely that He exists is irrelevant as you haven't even demonstrated that He does exist. Kilmarnock 11:53, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Random comments

Come on, I have offered the invitation. I assumed that somebody on this self-regarded esteemed site would dare to at least respond with some sort of reasoned response. Alas, I feel the lot of you fear more than lear for knowledge.

It is telling that the secular humanist, atheist/agnostic sites invite inquiry whilst this one apparently admits only those of like minds. Which reminds (no pun intended) of the Oscar Wilde quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazes (talk)

Oscar Wilde! Uncyclopedia much? I like that site. As to your question, of course I can't know whether you're Jesus or not. There's a lot I don't know. Rockthecasbah 22:26, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
That is a fair answer. I give it due regard in all respects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazes (talk)
You can't be Jesus, I am! FernoKlumpLeave me a death threat!! 22:30, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Absolutely perfect answer! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazes (talk)

According to your User page you're the step-father of a User:GodlessLiberal. Jesus wasn't married. --S₮ёVeN 14:37, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Steven, first, you're talking to a blocked user... you blocked him. Kind of tacky.
Second, how do you know Jesus wasn't married? It wasn't in the Bible.... but neither were electrons, right?-Ave 14:47, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that's an amazing non sequitur: from someone who would appear frequently in the Gospels if she had existed, to something completely irrelevant to the Gospels. Hey, perhaps you think Jesus drove automobiles around also???--Aschlafly 15:04, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the unblock! Anyways, my point is that the Bible alone doesn't rule out that Jesus was married or had a car. You'd probably have to rely upon other evidence to prove the latter, and the former, too.-Ave 15:09, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
That block was completely my fault. Sorry!
You have a point about relying on external evidence. But a wife for Jesus would simply be inconsistent with too many factual accounts of Him. It would be like saying that Jesus was actually an official in the Roman Army.--Aschlafly 15:17, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
He said "Absolutely perfect answer!"; I didn't see that comment there when I blocked him. Inexplicabley, it looked like it was posted after I blocked him. If he was still around, I thought I'd say something. whatever.
Plus Jesus never went around saying "Prove I'm not Jesus." --S₮ёVeN 21:41, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Amen to that, Steven! Jinxmchue 01:50, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
But he did go around saying he was the son of god...David Ickes said that too, but actually raised a good point: 'People laughed at Jesus too'. All we can do is wait to see who the religion builds itself around if a few thousand years. That is, if we havent all died from the effects of global warming... IDontBelieveInGod 06:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Jesus' bride is the church, and He is faithful to her, so has/had no other bride. Philip J. Rayment 23:08, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

So the argument is that Blazes can't be Jesus, because Blazes is married and Jesus wasn't? I hate to point this out, but surely he could be married now without having been married 2000 years ago? Also, given Jewish customs of the time, it would have been very odd for Jesus not to be married, and yet no reference is made in the gospels as to why he was not married (if he indeed wasn't). My point isn't that Jesus was married, but rather that I'm sure there are things that are at the very least, skimmed over by the Gospels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholl (talk)
No, that's not the argument. Read it again. Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia insight

Girls are injured in sports at higher rates than boys, where is the conservapedia insight in this one? people of conservapedia have finally realized that girls and boys have physical differences? AustinK 09:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

The link to the Conservapedia insight is there on the Main page. Did you read it? It's (some) liberals who are finally waking up to this insight, and finally starting to publicize it.--Aschlafly 09:33, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I allready read the link, but i really really can't see what the insight you are talking about is, i can't see any one disputing that girls and boys have physical differences and those can lead to more injuries in some sports. And for it to be "liberal denial" there surely should be more than single article from alleged liberal to back up this claim? AustinK 09:53, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm also confused about this. If this is liberal denial, and the New York Times (a liberal rag) wrote an article about it, then how are liberals denying it?HowieFerence 13:47, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Liberals have denied and concealed this for years, and many still do. I don't see the strident liberals on this site admitting it yet. Most parents of girls in sports are probably unaware of this. You won't find any law briefs by liberals admitting this. Yes, one article in the New York Times finally admits this now after tens of thousands or more have been injured, but you find any feminist groups admitting this even now.--Aschlafly 14:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

About the new King-related entry: How was that a "Conservapedia insight"? The sole complaint cited in the Archive is a quote from a USA Today article which in turn cites human rights activists, so I fail to see the "insight" Conservapedia had or added. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term "Conservapedia insight" here; if so, a clarification would be nice. Right now it appears as if any position voiced by somebody on Conservapedia counts as a "Conservapedia insight", regardless of whether this simply echoed or quoted other people or of how many people shared the same "insight". And that sounds like a somewhat odd definition to me because by that logic, any confirmation of gravity would pretty much count as a "Conservapedia insight" simply because we have the article on gravity, which states that "[e]verything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass". Personally, I think the term makes us sound egocentric - do we really need to pat our own shoulder like that? --JBrown 21:51, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

It was an insight to recognize this as an outrage ... eight months before the federal panel came to the same conclusion. Perhaps USA Today also deserves credit, but notice how no liberal recognized this at the time, or perhaps even now.--Aschlafly 22:02, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Our own entry on USA Today states that it "is owned by the leftist media conglomerate Gannett Corporation", which doesn't exactly make USA Today sound like a conservative source. Also, the (USA Today) article cites a wide number of people; are you claiming that all of them were conservatives? Apparently you do, because according to you, "no liberal recognized this at the time".
Also, you didn't really help with a definition of "Conservapedia insight". In fact, you pretty much strengthened my fear that we could - in theory - classify anything said previously on this site as a "Conservapedia insight". I hope this really is a big misunderstanding.
However, I concede that it is a "Conservapedia insight" that the statue is going to be built in China instead of Washington, D.C. now. [points at the current main page] </hint> --JBrown 22:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
You're nitpicking, and after all this you still can't cite a liberal source recognizing what we did eight months ago. Our entry on USA Today does not say it is liberal, and it does sometimes have conservative insights.
We recognized this as an outrage eight months ago. Do you even recognize it as an outrage now? Does the New York Times, which claims to print all the news that is fit to print?--Aschlafly 22:39, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't nitpicking, I was pointing out a factually wrong part of your news page. You're quite welcome, by the way.
And I'm not really in the mood to suddenly go look for decidedly liberal sources that said something eight months ago. I did point out the flaw in your argument, though: What makes you so sure that the USA Today article and all the people in it are conservative? You're the one making the odd claims and then backing them by sending others on a pointless wild goose chase. No thanks.
Seeing how you are unwilling or unable to give a good definition of "Conservapedia insight", I will simply leave it at that. If you wish to label anything you like as a "Conservapedia insight", you are free to do so, just be aware that it makes you look as if you're patting your own shoulder for citing some news article in the past. --JBrown 22:51, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
There was nothing factually wrong in my ("your") news posting, so you're really grasping at straws by implying there was. This is a wiki, and I trust you understand by now how wikis work.
As to the insight, more than one person can have an insight at the same time, and recognizing the significance of what someone else says can also be insightful. One can be an "insightful editor," for example. Your replies indicate that you apparently still don't recognize the significance of the criticism of the sculpture. So perhaps the only real objection is that we did not stress our point enough to persuade doubters like yourself.
Given your style so far, I expect you will insist on last wordism.--Aschlafly 23:19, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, since you bring up last wordism, I shall spare you the shame of having the last word yourself. You claim "There was nothing factually wrong in my ("your") news posting". Well, let's see. I never said that it was your news posting. I did say that there had been a factual mistake on your news page. I also never implied that it was your (in the singular meaning) news posting. I trust you to understand how to read postings without interpreting something into it that is not said or meant.
About the presence of a factual mistake: The news posting (the original - and error-free - version of which had indeed been added by you, btw.) read that the sculpture would be in China, which is simply not true. In fact, this error was explicitly introduced by a sysop with the edit summary "clarified that planned sculpture is in China". I know what caused the error (the article says that the model of the sculpture had been created in China), but it's still an error, no matter what you claim otherwise. You corrected that mistake after I pointed this out to you. But no matter how you twist it, the entry had been factually wrong until I pointed it out to you. On other sites, the sysop would have said "You're right, thanks for pointing this out!". Here, however, I am accused of nitpicking and "last wordism" while you claim that there had been nothing wrong. I guess that's an insight in itself: There is no incentive for pointing out main page mistakes. So I will focus on the editable mainspace instead. 90/10 and all that, too.
About "Conservapedia insight": You simply verified that pretty much everything posted on this site can be viewed as an insight, which sort of devalues the term in my eyes, but since you(?) coined it, I guess you are free to define it as you see fit.
And I never gave my own opinion on the "outrage" because it didn't matter for the content of my posting, which focused primarily on the "Conservapedia insight" definition. So my replies don't indicate anything, and I reject any speculation by you about my opinions because they will be nothing more than blind guesses. But this discussion gave me a good idea for a new article; I hope it will be... insightful. --JBrown 09:27, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how the fact that girls get injured in sports more often--or easily, depending on how you look at it-- is a conservative viewpoint. It's basic biology. WBC 01:10, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

But that's exactly the point. Liberals deny basic biology in claiming that anything men can do, women can equally do, too, and without consequence. Jinxmchue 01:48, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

My mistake

Sorry! I misread the article about the MLK sculpture. DanH 23:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

'Sex is a drug"

While I might not disagree with the Catholics views here, I have to ask: What would he know about sex? And if sex is a drug, shouldn't their be a "war on sex"? ---user:DLerner--- 08:57, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well I do disagree with the Catholic views, but the Pope actually said that sex can "transform itself into a drug", not that it "is" a drug. And you don't have to personally experience something to be able to know about it. Philip J. Rayment 10:17, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Well said, Philip. I particularly like the criticism of the notion that one has to experience something personally in order to be able to comment on it.--Aschlafly 10:41, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Pro-choice advertisement

The Planned Parenthood reminded me of a billboard like this I saw today in NYC [2] Kektk 21:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Shocking billboard, and a reminder of pro-abortion demagoguery. Doubt it fools as many people as it used to. If abortion were so great, why don't the abortionists pay for the long-term harm they cause?--Aschlafly 21:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Breaking news suggestion: student wins award for his fight for freedom in Venezuela

Despite suffering violent assault and intimidation, 23 year old student Yon Goicoechea has vociferously opposed the autocratic policies of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Now his efforts receive international recognition with the award of the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty by the Cato Institute. Bugler 12:48, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Superb suggestion, Bugler! Added as requested. Conservapedia is going to give awards like that one day. See and make suggestions at Essay:Conservapedia Awards. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Mistaken Deletion

I created the page "Liberal parables" after specifically asking and receiving permission from Aschafly on the Conservative parables talk page. I then created a very unobjectionable liberal parable that I thought best exemplified the matter. But then some other guy came along and added a pretty offensive second one, and in response a sysop deleted the whole page! I wonder if someone could restore it to my last good version, please. Here is the history of it. Thanks! :)--ThomasE 14:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberal nonsense invites liberal atrocities. It's time for liberals to recognize that and admit some responsibility for what fellow liberals do - or at least not open the door to it.--Aschlafly 18:06, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
I specifically asked your permission to create the page, and you gave it. I specifically mimicked the construction of the conservative parables page, so as to make it acceptable. And I specifically chose a person - Gandhi - whose example is greatly admired by many people and who embodies some excellent liberal values. What possible rationale is there for deleting the page? It's almost as if you're unwilling to give even the appearance that some liberal values might have worth to them, and are so eager to silence people who might disagree that you will ensure they can't defend themselves... thus this second account. Don't you think a leader should attempt to be, rather than merely to seem, just, Nicholo?--ThomasE2 22:08, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Your entry "liberal parables" is a slippery slope that inevitably leads to real liberal propaganda in today's world. Do I need to list them in all their abominations? You can't open the door to thieves and then disclaim what they then do. Unfortunately, your attitude is similar to that of many liberals today. To take just one example, they support obscenity but disclaim the harm that obscenity causes. Recognize the slippery slope and predictable outcomes, please.--Aschlafly 22:22, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Since this is probably the last edit I will get before I am banned to ensure your last wordism, I want to point out how absurd your assertion is. Restore the page and lock it... that would entirely eliminate any threat of "slippery slope."
Why don't you simply admit that you think your ideology should triumph and that no others should be heard? No one in your echo chamber here is going to fault you for it... they think it's the correct thing to do. You want to silence any possibility that people might disagree, and so you try to cut off all potentially disagreeing articles. Every allowance you make to any sort of dissent is one that is forced upon you. I think if there is a slippery slope to recognize, it is probably the one upon which you tread when you eliminate any objections from minority groups - such as freethinkers, here.--ThomasE2 22:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
ThomasE2, you still refuse to assign any blame to a fellow liberal for his conduct to which you opened the door. Instead, you blame conservatives. You want conservatives to spend extra time watching, policing and preventing predictable offenses that will follow from the slippery slope that you promote.
This interchange illustrates a bigger problem with liberal values: they inevitably lead to offenses that liberals refuse to take responsibility for, and expect conservatives to clean up or take special measures to prevent. No thanks.--Aschlafly 22:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
"Blame?" I'm not sure there's any blame to be assigned. He posted something that was inflammatory, but generally true. It just didn't belong on the page. It was hardly a... what did you call it? Ah, yes. An "atrocity." You appear to have a remarkably loose definition of that word that it applies to an amusing - if inappropriately located - little rant.
I said above that it was "pretty offensive." Are you asking that I both denounce and reject it?  ;)
This interchange illustrates a bigger problem with- well, I won't say "conservatives," because I think it's silly to try to carve up the world into the neat little chunks to which you ascribe. But it does illustrate a bigger problem with you and this site. You're dedicated to pushing your agenda, and allowing any disagreement into the picture would spoil that. I had to call you out on your behavior just to ensure I could get another reply (although your cronies will swoop in pretty soon to cut off my words). I have to say, for someone who is avowedly dedicated to the ideals of the founders of the country, you seem pretty much ignorant of the value of free speech and dissent. Obviously, this is your commercial website, so you can do what you want, but don't you think there might be some value to something held so highly by some pretty important fellows like Jefferson and Adams?
I don't want anything extra. I want my article to receive the same treatment as every other article is supposed to receive. That includes accepting the possibility that one might be incorrect or that other views might be worth hearing. But I guess that isn't important to you, is it? It's only important that you be heard. Maybe China needs to start a sculpture of you in that objectionable style.--ThomasE2 22:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
No, you want me to provide special police protection for your entry, after you open the door to liberal offensiveness. As I said, no thanks. And do not continue with your last wordism here along with gratuitous insults.--Aschlafly 23:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting note: ThomasE2 was immediately banned after the above, as was his sock when it tried to reply. The reply was reverted. It's almost... almost like Schlafly is dead-set on getting the last word. Golly willickers.--JerryJ 23:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Nope, but maybe you are. To correct the misleading implication of your statement, I neither reverted ThomasE2 nor blocked him.--Aschlafly 23:35, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
PLEASE be CIVIL!!!, this is a place for a family setting, JerryJ if you dont like it go to wikipedia. We have an encyclopedia to build. --Reallife 23:50, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Atheism article

The article on Atheism is now the 4th search result for atheism on altavista and yahoo. -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe you mean 14th possibly, (error thought Deborah was talking about google) right now the atheism article is the 10th search result for atheism on google up from 13th for the search for atheism a couple days ago --Delilah 12:45, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I have been reading this site for a while and just joined, I'll probably do little changes to this site, perhaps fix spelling errors if I find them --Delilah 12:50, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I just created which shot our article on atheism up from 10th to 5th for search on atheism --Delilah 12:55, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your contributions here. The jump you describe is amazing!--Aschlafly 12:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia just deleted it --Delilah 13:01, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

That's funny. Why does that not surprise me?--Aschlafly 13:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
It shouldn't surprise you in the slightest. The reason given was 'linkspam'.[3] The entirety of the article was a link to conservapedia. I believe that conservapedia does the same thing with people creating pages just to advertise other sites. --Rutm 13:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

We shot back to 10th --Delilah 13:02, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

We are now number 1--Delilah 13:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

This kind of thing is never accurate. Google has it at 12th for me. Google is detecting your frequent searches and modifying its results to please you. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:40, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay my search says 11, our search engine jumping technique got killed --Delilah 13:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Search engines don't like being tricked. Link spamming and similar techniques are used by less than scrupulous people to try to inflate their own website rankings. Doing this type of thing will bias some search engines against the site being linked to to compensate for the link spam, and then it could drop further once the link spamming is removed. Please realize that link spamming like the example done in wikipedia is something that is done by people spamming pornography links on blogs hoping to get their own pron website higher - resorting to similar techniques does not reflect well upon those who do it. --Rutm 14:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I reckon this one goes up on conservative deceit.--JerryJ 23:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

News item suggestion

I read an article today that might be good for "In the news": It's about an administrator for the University of Toledo who got fired after she wrote a newspaper column "expressing her opinion that being gay is a choice that has consequences, according to her religious beliefs."--AngelaK

Wow! Posted as suggested. Thanks!--Aschlafly 12:59, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I object to the reference to her race. The article makes no mention of it and I do not believe race was a factor. Please remove the reference. Rellik 18:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Jerry Springer

I don't see how this shows Liberals love their media icons. Are you suggesting that every student who objected and tried to oppose inviting him is conservative? Surely many of them are liberal and still object to his delivering a speech. This only shows that the ones at the helm made a ridiculous choice. ATang 12:44, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you're right. Liberals often do complain about other liberals. Obama v. Clinton proves that. But the criticism expressed here is still valid, don't you think?--Aschlafly 13:00, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
What I want to know is where the idea that Jerry Springer is a liberal icon comes from? He's at least arguably liberal (I don't know his exact politics), and he's a media personality, but that's a far cry from being a liberal media icon, at least in the way you're implying.--Frey 17:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Dude, reread what we said. We didn't claim Jerry Springer is a "liberal icon." He's undeniably a "media icon," and liberals worship media icons.--Aschlafly 17:38, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Calling people "Dude" isn't exactly the language of quality debate, but whatever. So if liberals especially love their media icons, who loves the following? - Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, William Buckley, Pat Buchanan.
I could go on. And on. But I won't, the point is made. Many people of many political persuasions love media icons. It's not an especially liberal trait, and to claim so is silly. GaryK 17:56, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
The salutation "Dude" was appropriate given the subject matter of our discussion. Liberals worship the media more than conservatives do. I dare say that liberals are even obsessed more with conservatives in the media than conservatives are! For example, AOL (which is extremely liberal) talks more about Rush Limbaugh than most conservatives I know.--Aschlafly 18:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm not convinced that the salutation "Dude" is appropriate for anyone other than teenage boys (and even then I find it annoying), but thats just me! As to your claim "Liberals worship the media more than conservatives do", do you have anything whatsoever other than your own opinion to back that up? Since this is Talk page chat, you can say whatever you want, but that's just total fabrication and you haven't a leg to stand on. There will be no data to support that claim whatsoever. GaryK 18:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Dude, where's my tots?--User:StevenM 18:59, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

That's funny, but what's "tots"?--Aschlafly 19:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Watch this video to see what happens when you call someone "dude". Some kid got in major trouble with Officer Salvatore Rivieri the Baltimore Police Department for calling an officer "dude". (I think he was originally in trouble for skateboarding in public, but the "dude" dialog nearly got the kid arrested.) FYI, I sent an email to the Baltimore Police Department supporting Officer Rivieri, even though he was suspended. Being conservative means you support the police. --Elkman 18:25, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Really? Conservatives must always support the police, even if there's an abuse of power???--Aschlafly 19:18, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Tater tots: little potato snacks playing a prominent role in the movie Napolean Dynamite. Anyway, I can imagine dude being in appropriate, but it was perfectly understandable considering we're talking about a light topic (Jerry Springer). I don't feel formal debate is always necessary either. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 19:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Dudes, distract yourselves all you want with the Dude thing, but ASchlafly has yet to suggest a source to backup his contention that "Liberals worship the media more than conservatives do". I know none will be forthcoming, and I would put it to you that yet again, your case does not stand up in court. GaryK 19:37, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Not everything that is true, even obviously true, is immediately provable. Presumably one reason that the media is demonstrably liberal is that their fans are more liberal than the general population. Also, I can tell you that conservatives watch less television and see fewer movies than liberals do.--Aschlafly 19:44, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Adding to your homework? No problem! Now, we need sources for your claim that " are more liberal than the general population", and also that "conservative watch less television", and also "conservatives watch fewer movies". Debating is very simple - provide sources for these specious claims and your argument stands. Fail to provide them, and the claims run through your fingers like water. You can't present arguments like this in court, I assure you. And you're the lawyer, supposedly. GaryK 19:51, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
No, GaryK, it's not true that reasoned discussion is limited to what is immediately provable with hard evidence. Logic can be used, for example, and it is compelling to an open mind. The media cater to their customers. The media are more liberal than the general public. Ergo, the customers and fans of the media are more liberal than the general public. It's only the closed-minded who refuse to use logical analysis and demand hard evidence for every claim.--Aschlafly 20:02, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Is that really an argument you want to make? It seems like the conclusion--that "customers and fans of the media are more liberal than the general public"--has flaws, in that it necessarily implies that the general public are neither customers of nor fans of the media. Such a claim, I think, would fall apart in short order, unless you define your terms more clearly. After all, someone who regularly listens to Rush Limbaugh and posts here is a "media fan." He's simply a fan of different media than the liberals of whom you speak.
In short: do you really want to cede the title of "the media" to liberals?
--Benp 20:12, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Mr.Schlalfly. Your arguments are hollow. When you argued for Dr.Springer against the Delaware Psychiatric Center, and won, you presumably provided to the court documentary evidence for the claim that he was unjustly victimized by the hospital for raising complaints about standards? Where I stand here, today, I am in your shoes. You are making random specious claims that are utterly unsubstantiated. Your interpretation of the meaning of the word "logic" has become the exact opposite of the actual meaning of the word. To you, logic is simply "because you say so". Yet you continue to be completely unable to ever back up any of your claims with any facts. In your above response you jump from supposition to premise to opinion and back again, stating opinion as fact. You know that such a presentation of an argument could not stand the heat of a court of law, so why do you try to present your arguments here on CP in a way that is guaranteed to lose you your case, instead of a win, as you have done in court? All any of us ask is something to back up any of your claims. It would not be hard to make a fool of me by whipping out a cite for all your above claims, and if you could, I would immediately stand down. But we will not let you present lies as facts and just 'lie down and take it', and instead it is you who looks exceedingly foolish. GaryK 20:15, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

(Unindenting) GaryK, if you have any solid evidence against the claim that most of the readers that the Mainstream Media has left, and most of the viewers that modern television has left, are liberal, then why don't you show it? Do you deny that mainstream news media, motion pictures, and television mostly present liberal themes? Shall I tell you how many motion pictures I personally have seen in the last eight years? Probably not more than one per year among first-run releases. Furthermore, I attend a church whose pastoral and diaconal staff refuse even to darken the doors of public cinema houses, as a testimony against Hollywood values and also to avoid having to explain that they are there only to attend a "good" motion picture (of which I personally count less than one per thousand releases). And modern series television? Forget it! Before my wife died, she was ripping off the front covers of TV Guide on account of the almost pornographic cover pictures that were either screenshots from modern shows or publicity stills of the leading actresses, until finally we simply let our subscription lapse.

Now all right—dude. Say that that's an "n of two." (Or three, if you count Andy.) But I defy you to show that any conservative, other than a professional or volunteer critic, watches more than one hour of television a week, other than on Fox News.

And why don't we go? Why don't we watch? Because it's total trash, that's why!

I don't normally mix it up here, because the 90/10 rule reminds me not to waste my time. But when I have evidence that bears directly on a debate, I present it.--TerryHTalk 20:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Terry your... spartan existence aside, do you really purport to say that the entire primetime lineup is composed of shows watched exclusively by liberals? LOST? Eli Stone? All sitcoms? I doubt it. It seems to me that you bear the burden of proof on this rather extravagant claim. And your own habits aren't proof.-ASpringer 21:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
ASpringer, no one is claiming that EVERY show is watched ONLY by liberals.
GaryK, let's try an analogous issue unclouded by politics. Would you agree, without hard evidence, that the customers and fans of taverns drink more than the general public? That the television media is predominantly liberal? Now, substitute television media for taverns and you have the answer.--Aschlafly 21:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)--Aschlafly 21:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
ASpringer, what in the name of Newton N. Minow are you talking about? Lost? What's that? Eli Stone? Who's he? Though I seem to recall that one of those shows is an unscripted show about a bunch of people stranded on a tropical island, and one of them is a murderer—or are they dealing with a man-attacking predator, species unknown? Seems awfully fanciful. And if CincPac, with all his assets, couldn't find them, then what do we have a Navy for?
Is that the sort of trash with which you pollute your mind, and destroy your facility for critical thinking?
When old Newt said that TV was "a vast wasteland," he didn't know the half of it.--TerryHTalk 23:24, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh for pete's sake, Terry, my *mother* watches a lot of tv, and she's a church-twice-a-week, choir-singing, DAR-officer-ing registered member of the Republican party who votes in primaries and generals. My dad, who fits the profile, watches some although not as much as her. My sister, ditto. My brother does too, but he's a lib. And frankly, despite people on this site repeatedly telling me that I'm *not* a conservative, I a)refute that, and b)watch my own fair share.
It would be simple to continue. You're down on TV, got it. You may even be right in your reasons. But the idea that conservatives don't watch TV except for FOX News and/or professional obligation is absurd. Aziraphale 11:31, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Reminds me of a quote by the comedian Gallagher - " I wish there was a knob on the television to turn up the intelligence - there is one called brightness but it doesn't work.--Nik77uk 11:57, 14 May 2008 (GMT)

Me and my friends are all conservative; we watch a minimum of TV. We're teenagers but Smallville still comes second to homework. and Dancing with the Stars is just stupid. We all know television is mostly unintellgent and bad for your brain. It's 70% Liberal, 80% sin, and 100% secular. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:20, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Steven - that should be "My friends and I", not "Me and my friends", so perhaps a session in front of Sesame Street might help your grammar.  :-) GaryK 14:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
TerryH - it's patently ludicrous to suggest that 'conservatives don't watch TV', or even that they watch 'less' TV. As always, I won't make hard and fast claims without some evidence, and here's the research I've found so far - [4][5](this reference includes the interesting observation that "the more you watch Fox News, the more likely your perceptions about the Iraq War are wrong"). It's not conclusive, I'll grant you, but I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest that "conservatives watch less TV than liberals" - but I'll be happy to stand down if you can find such evidence yourself. As always, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and with the most-watched TV news show being Fox News, it seems the majority of TV news biases conservative.
Mr.Schlafly, I'm delighted with your suggested approach, so thank you for that. And surprisingly, no, I wouldn't necessarily agree that people in bars and taverns drink more than those at home. It might be true, but I doubt one can jump so readily to that conclusion - notoriously, in the case of alcoholics, who often drink much more secretly than one might imagine. Again, it's case of "interesting, I wonder if that supposition is actually true - let's research it!". As to Mainstream Media being predominantly liberal, I seriously question that premise - as your own article on MSM points out, the most watched news programming is Fox News, which skews heavily conservative. Also, in my own opinion - not one I expect everyone to share - CNN is markedly conservative, as are most major media organs in the Western world. Progressives find it hard to see any major media organ as pushing anything other than a pro-business, anti-shared responsibility, pro-status quo agenda. Although it may come as a surprise to you, most liberals and progressives believe the Mainstream Media skews conservative, not liberal. GaryK 12:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Fox News is not Mainstream Media. Mainstream Media is a bunch of people with permanently-upturned noses, regularly comparing notes and deciding what to promote and what not to promote, according to one criterion only: the advancement of a liberal agenda. The people at Fox aren't part of that cocktail circuit.
"The more you watch Fox News, the more likely your perceptions about the Iraq War are wrong." Now whoever would say that, has to be a liberal. And did you catch where it came from? Asia Times, which is Mainstream Media. Worse yet, the "reports" come from typical mainstream universities, and the evidence for their liberalism and twisting of the truth would be longer than this page could hold in five or six iterations. Really, now--as George Sanders (as Allison De Witt in All About Eve) famously said, what do you take me for? You present a reference that proves my point, and then try to pretend that it proves yours.
My point was that conservatives do not watch Mainstream Media television outlets (you don't believe me? Ask A. C. Nielsen), nor the goofy and close-to-pornographic content that passes for regular series these days (which is why so much of Fall Preview coverage is devoted not to "returning faves" but rather to new shows). And the reason is simple: there's nothing good on television anymore, and hasn't been for years.--TerryHTalk 14:06, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Terry, it's obvious Fox News is not only Mainstream Media, but THE most Mainstream of all of them - it's viewing figures clearly place it not only in the 'mainstream', but at the very top. To imagine that Fox News people are somehow like journalistic monks, sequestering themselves away from 'cocktail circuits' and the like, betrays an astonishing naivety of the global media business that obviously comes from how little you actually watch TV. You are aware, I hope, that Fox is owned by News Corp, which is the largest media enterprise on the entire planet, and which owns almost a monopoly of newspapers and television stations in Australia, the UK, and the US? You realise that Murdoch is not only not an outsider, but at the very heart of Mainstream Media? You understand that he pursued and won American citizenship so that he could further expand his media empire in the US and bypass regulations controlling foreign media ownership? You realise the same man owns the TV Guide your wife so despised? You realise he also owns 21st Century Fox, the movie studio that makes the trashy movies you disavow? Have you ever watched Fox News and noticed how the vast majority of movie and TV shows they mention are Fox products? You understand that 'Fair & Balanced' is an advertising slogan written by their marketing department, not a peer-reviewed judgement call?
Now, don't get me wrong - your qualitative judgement about "there's nothing good on TV any more" is an entirely reasonable statement, and in some ways I quite agree with you, reality TV is total and utter tripe, and nothing is to be gained from watching most of that nonsense, or indeed much of the rubbish that passes for drama these days. But these are qualitative judgements of our own opinions, and not quantifiable in any meaningful way. If that's your reason for not watching TV, I applaud you. but to suggest that it's because 'conservatives watch less TV' is total fabrication and opinion.
Finally, you suggest AC Nielsen has figures to back up your claims? Would you like to provide a link to that, which would in one fell swoop blow my argument out of the water? I will gladly back down if you can provide that link. GaryK 14:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You still don't get it, do you? Mainstream Media is not defined by total viewership. It can't be, because Mainstream Media has been losing viewership ever since that disgusting business with Dan Rather and the Killian Memoranda.

Mainstream Media is those media organs that have been in the business since at least the 1950s, and who still think that they have, and by right ought to have, the power to decide what is, and what is not, news. By that standard, Fox News is outside. Mainstream Media was Katherine Graham, while she was still alive, and Dan Rather, when he still had a job, and Mainstream Media is also Walter Cronkite, Katie Couric, Meredith Vieira, and that entire rogues' gallery. And they do not invite Rupert Murdoch to their parties. Instead they plot and they scheme about how to get rid of him. What they most want to do is legislate against him, and against Joseph Farah, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and so on. Does the phrase Fairness Doctrine mean anything to you?

And this is what I meant by saying, "Go ask A. C. Nielsen." The fact of the matter is that CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News have been losing viewership, just as The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have been losing readership.

And your reliance on the hoity-toity concept of "peer review" speaks volumes about why you don't get it, or don't want to admit it. I quote Rush Limbaugh: the alternative media, of which Fox News is the leader in viewership and organization, is the balance against the old dragons and battle-axes of the Mainstream Media. (Similarly, Conservapedia is the balance against the liberal bias, gossip, and pornography of Wikipedia, but that's another topic.)

About the only part of the above that you got right are my reasons for not watching most mainstream television. TV has turned to trash. It has become that "vast wasteland" that Newton N. Minow said it was, and gotten more of a wasteland every year since then. And that's why I don't watch it. Now what you are clumsily trying to dispute is my statement that my fellow conservatives understand as well as I do that TV is become an ash can, and for that reason, they don't watch it either.--TerryHTalk 15:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

At the risk of a "nuh unh" response - yes, they do. Aziraphale 15:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Terry's "conservative" should be read with its tacit prefix of "ultra". He makes much more sense that way. --Leda 15:47, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Terry, I'm afraid you're very ill-informed about cross-media ownership and power. The only 'liberal' who has ever come close to Murdoch in power to control what you read and watch was Ted Turner, but his light has faded somewhat and his empire is now much less significant compared to Murdoch's global control of media. There are only about six major media organizations worldwide, and there is simply no media organization more mainstream than any of Murdoch's, although you are absolutely correct when you point out that he is, at the very least, the most recent global media titan. In his own words, "Our reach is unmatched around the world". Take a look at this fascinating chart which shows you who owns what, and then tell me that Fox is any more 'Fair & Balanced' than any of the others (warning, the chart is large and takes maybe a minute to load). They're not, they simply say they are in a catchy but untrue ad slogan, and they have a clearly conservative agenda. Which is fine, I don't have a problem with that, but it's sill to deny it and insist they are ascetic hermits of news, sticking to pure journalism - there's no news outlet more sensationalist or gossip-based. And quoting Rush Limbaugh at me to prove a point? Excuse me while I choke on my lunch.
And where is that AC Nielsen study you mentioned? I'm still interested to see it. GaryK 16:09, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
One last point - referring to a peer-review process as 'hoity-toity' is rather foolish. Every court in the land operates by such a process. GaryK 16:13, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Those "cross-media ownership" figures that you're whining about prove nothing, are not relevant to the definition of "mainstream media," and don't matter. And when you try to argue that those ownership figures alone belie the "fair and balanced" phrase is a non sequitur. And I repeat: the alternative media, of which Fox News is the leader (a fact that you acknowledge, while you manifestly bewail it), is the balance against the claque of liberal defeatists and socialists who are the house organs of the Democratic Party in all but name.
And I repeat what I said: "Peer review" is an excuse by mainstream academia to exclude—or as Ben Stein said, expel—scholarly opinion with which they disagree.
I don't need any specific study. All I need to do is watch the ratings. They've been going down. It's worse than Katie Couric likely looking at nonrenewal of her contract. All of the networks are suffering, except Fox.--TerryHTalk 16:24, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Hi Terry,
Here’s the trick about being balanced. If mainstream media is biased towards liberalism, then a largely conservative-biased broadcast would balance that out. Yep, 100% true. That broadcast, however, is not in-and-of-itself balanced. It’s ‘’balancing’’, in the macro sense, but by definition it’s not balanced. I believe that’s what sticks in the craw of Fox News’s critics.
And, by the way, conservatives watch TV. Just sayin’. Aziraphale 16:31, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Terry, you are pulling a straw man on me - you have many of my positions completely wrong. I am not 'whining' about cross-media ownership - I'm simply pointing it out, and suggesting that as your wife loathed the TV Guide covers, did you ever stop to consider that they were being put there by the same people that broadcast Fox News? I would personally consider it just as much of a problem that Disney or Time/Warner own as much as they do as News Corp. Next, to suggest that I am denying the success of Fox is ridiculous, as I was the first to point out their success - they're clearly doing very well indeed. Likewise the decline of other media organs is obvious, and fully supported by the numbers. To call Fox News 'alternative' is plainly ridiculous. You are aware that organs as diverse as Rush Limbaugh and Village Voice both have lay claim to the title 'alternative media'? 'Alternative' means whatever you want it to mean. Finally, here is a study which answers any of the issues we debate here. Published by Harris Interactive, one of the largest and most well-respected pollsters in the US, some of the findings are:

  • CNN and Fox are the news sources with the largest reach. The survey is dated 2006, and since then Fox is now on top
  • 'Heavy' media users watch Fox more often
  • Dems watch CNN, Republicans watch Fox (as if we didn't know that, eh?!)
  • Fox viewers think there's a liberal bias, CNN viewers think there's a conservative bias (again, no surprise there.
  • Fox News trends much more Republican than CNN trends Democrat - 63% vs. 42%, respectively.
  • Most interestingly, the heaviest users of media are Republicans, and the lightest are Democrats - this directly contradicts your thesis
  • Finally, the more heavily one uses the media, the more likely one is to watch Fox and think the media has a liberal bias.

It seems your thesis is not supported by the facts. GaryK 16:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Your interpretation is at fault, as usual. Republicans turn to Fox because they are fed-up with CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and all the rest of them. Fox does not teach them that the media has a liberal bias. Rather, Fox is the go-to place for a counteractive to the liberal bias.
The alternative media means all the media that are propounding messages at variance with the messages of the Mainstream Media. Publications like The Advocate are not alternative media; they propound the same messages as the Mainstream Media, the only difference being one of degree.
All you've shown is that Fox has beaten CNN in the ratings race. The difference between us is that I see that as a good sign, and you see it as a bad.--TerryHTalk 17:00, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Again, you're misrepresenting me - and also the study. Of COURSE Republicans turn to Fox because they prefer its output - there's no other reason - I wouldn't deny that for a second! As to what the study shows - let's focus for a moment on our original dispute (we have become distracted with other topics). Originally, all we were debating was your thesis that "conservatives watch less television than liberals", yes?. We now have that study, and it proves that in fact, the opposite is true, and conservatives appear to watch more TV than liberals. That is all we were debating, and it is settled by this study. GaryK 17:08, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
No, we haven't. All that study looks at is news programming. It says nothing about entertainment programming. And in fact entertainment programming is the chief or sole context in which I made my original assertion.
IOW, "getting the news" is not what one normally means by "watching television." Rather, "watching television" means watching Sex and the City or Will and Grace or Lost or Ellen (when that was on). So ask yourself: why would any conservative tune in to the entertainment schedule? (And sports doesn't count, either; TV sports is merely a substitute for not being at the game itself.)--TerryHTalk 17:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
They watch it to be entertained. Let's settle this. Define "conservative" for me and I'll go find people who fit your definition and watch tv for entertainment. Honest. I'll do the heavy lifting. The only thing you have to leave out of your definition is "doesn't watch tv for entertainment," as that's self-fulfilling. Aziraphale 17:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
A conservative is one who espouses—and lives by—conservative values. Those values include God, family, and country, in that rough order, and the advocacy of capitalism, within certain limits. Those limits are not on how much money one may make but rather on how one may make it.
Show me someone who believes as I do, who would even be entertained by the kind of tripe on the entertainment schedule these days, and I'd like to see just how "conservative" they really are.--TerryHTalk 18:31, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Ok, but how many of those do you need to prove your point? I don't even need to hunt if the answer is "1." I'd put myself forward but I know you (and others) don't buy that, so let's stick with my mom. Her name is Wanda (I'm not giving out my last name, sorry), she's 70+ years old. She firmly believes in God, is a member of a Presbyterian Church in a small town in South Carolina. She has been an elder in the church, and sang in the choir until her voice gave out a couple years ago; she still sits in occasionally for the camaraderie. She cares deeply about her family, including her wayward son way out in Seattle. She loves America, guiding her DAR chapter (she is a past president at the local level, is still an officer and has been an officer at the state level) in many patriotism-themed community events. As for capitalism, I don't know that I've heard her articulate a clear view on the subject but she expresses antipathy towards any economic program espoused by a liberal politician, so I can infer that she's broadly on board with you. She certainly is against income redistribution, and we were never rich so it's not a matter of protectionism.
She likes Murder, She Wrote, The Waltons, Will & Grace, Frasier, Oprah, Newhart, Dancing With the Stars, The Apprentice, House, NCIS, and Back to You, and those are just the shows that have come up in conversation over the last month or so. As I don't live near her, I can't claim that I know everything she watches.
I can also broadly infer that several members of her bridge club like at least a few of those shows, as she talks about the giggles they share over cards. Since those women generally fit her profile (memberships in different churches and community organizations not withstanding) I'd be comfortable submitting them as well. But I don't expect you'll swallow that, so tell me how many more examples you want before you'll concede the point. Thanks, Aziraphale 18:53, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, you'd need millions of your counterexamples before they tended to disprove the obvious correlation between liberal shows and a liberal viewership. Note that about half your shows went off the error for poor ratings, being replaced by more liberal claptrap like The Simpsons.
What's next in the absurd denial exhibited here. That there isn't a higher percentage of gamblers among tourists to Las Vegas than the general public???--Aschlafly 19:05, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Hello aschlafly,
I'm afraid you might have missed part of the conversation, or else one of us hasn't been very clear. TerryH has said repeatedly that *NO* conservative watches these shows. I am not engaged in any absurd denial and I'd appreciate not being labeled as such.
As for those shows going off the air - TerryH does not seem to draw a distinction between contemporary television and shows from a few years ago. Instead, he seems to draw the line several decades ago. In any event, my mother is currently watching all of those programs, in reruns or otherwise. Please, I'll ask you to respond to the points being discussed, otherwise this becomes one long non sequitor. Aziraphale 19:19, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Terry, you're seeing an effect here that's like the closing of a circle of political viewpoints. I, an open liberal, watch as little TV as possible for the same reasons you do - I think most contemporary TV is rubbish, most news is biased (in my case, I see the bias as being to the right), and most information as tainted. So as usual individual examples prove nothing. And it's becoming tiresome having to constantly do your work for you - can you please provide some basis for your claims, and stop expecting me and others to do your legwork? As is often said around here, "the burden of proof lies with the claimant". GaryK 19:01, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Good for you, GaryK, and I'm sure there are thousands of tourists to Las Vegas who abhor gambling. Too bad they are certainly badly outnumbered by people who are attracted by the gambling there. Ditto for those attracted to liberal shows on television.--Aschlafly 19:05, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting conversation. I'd clearly call myself a conservative, although not an ultra-conservative (but then who would call themselves that?), and I watch more television than TerryH does. (But given his comments, perhaps I better not mention what I watch! But there certainly is a lot of trash that I make a point of not watching.) But that doesn't mean that I watch all that much, and I'd be inclined to say that TerryH is correct that conservatives watch more than liberals (but that's an opinion, not a claim, so I've no intention of finding a source to back that up).

My impression of Murdoch (he was one of us, until he insulted the country by becoming a Yank :-)) is that he is in the business for the money/success. He is not really an ideologue, and he will provide what sells. And that seems to be (a) controversy, and (b) middle of the road. NewsCorp owns the largest-selling (by a considerable margin) newspaper here in Victoria. It's main competition is quite left-wing (US: liberal). Lefties (liberals) consider Murdoch's paper right-wing (conservative), but conservatives like me consider it somewhat non-conservative. Which is probably typical of many examples, and as someone mentioned above: they are too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals. I appreciate Murdoch's paper here because it has a few conservative columnists, even though it also has a number of liberal columnists. But the main competition wouldn't know what a conservative columnist was. And when I mention "conservative columnists", most if not all would be left of American conservatives (I don't know, for example, of one prominent columnist here who is a dedicated Christian). Murdoch himself, incidentally, is a fairly-recent convert to global warming.

Although I'm not too familiar with the American media landscape, I would definitely consider Fox news "mainstream". Perhaps a better term for TerryH to use would be "traditional"; i.e. Fox is not traditional media, but being a large player in the field, it would have to, by definition, be "mainstream".

Philip J. Rayment 08:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

debating Schlafly

It's only the closed-minded who refuse to use logical analysis and demand hard evidence for every claim.--Aschlafly 20:02, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

So it must be true. Let's apply that standard to evolution, shall we? The point is that your choice of standard is outcome-determinative.-ASpringer 21:06, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It's fine with to apply my quote to evolution. Logic blows evolution out of the water: no servant is ever greater than his master, no child can be genetically superior to both parents, disorder can never create order, randomness can never create beauty, etc.--Aschlafly 22:07, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
"It's fine with to apply my quote to evolution" that would be It's fine to apply my quote to evolution.
What do you mean greater? What do you mean genetically superior? The next two I get kind of. "disorder can never create order" if you are discussing thermodynamics here I suggest you look up the Miller-Urey Experiment. "Randomness can never create beauty." I disagree. I have seen some amazing works of art that are simply the artist dumping paint onto a canvas. That is random and it is beauty. Rellik 23:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

If i had the power i would block you myself NormanK,its because of Aschlafly that you can write here. --Reallife 01:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Ergo Aschlafly gets to say whatever he wants and we all must agree with him? That's how a BLOG works... and even then, commentary is encouraged. That's not NEARLY how a wiki works! If I had the power, I'd give you a lesson, Reallife, about the interplay between the ruler, knowledge, and the ruled.-LLort 01:13, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Leave, you are disruptive, if you continue i shall report you to a synop. God have mercy on you. --Reallife 01:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Reallife, you've hardly been here long enough yet to be ordering people around.
The Miller-Urey experiment created a random mixture of amino acids, and prevented the amino acids from breaking down by a very non-random trap: that part was intelligent design, not disorder.
Philip J. Rayment 05:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Whoa, no child can be genetically superior to both parents? That's a disheartening thought, as I hope I'm better than my parents (no disrespect to them, of course), and my children will be better than me. Must the later generations always head downhill? (as I see it happening in society today...)
I mean, in the case of a "good" recessive gene, can't the child receive the recessive allele from both heterozygous parents, in which case that "good" gene is expressed, and the child is therefore "better" than the parents?
ATang 11:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

"No servant is ever greater than his master" - how about Gandhi, how about MLK, how about all those who have risen up to shine light into the world? "No child can be genetically superior to his parents" - if this were true, life would have progressed backwards, and we would all have returned to blue-green algae. "Disorder can never create order" - not true. It's unlikely, but there is a statistical probability that it can happen. "Randomness can never create beauty". This is the statement I have the biggest problem with. Have you never seen rays of light in the ocean? The Aurora Borealis? The sky at night? The swirls of milk in your coffee? Randomness is he very ESSENCE of the creation of beauty, and it's all around you, and quite, quite glorious. GaryK 13:52, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Hm... I think your last argument relies on the premise that the universe is created randomly, which isn't congruent with the belief of a Creator. Regardless of the presence of a God, the universe is _not_ random. The examples you listed obey, respectively, the laws of electromagnetism (for the first 3), Kepler's laws of planetary motions, and fluid dynamics and vorticity. I'm not arguing that there's beauty in all those things (and yes, I do enjoy my morning joe), but the lack of human involvement does not equal randomness. ATang 14:19, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Nothing beautiful is random either, obviously. Rellik's example of a modern artist splashing paint on a canvas is not random by any means (nor would most call it beautiful, by the way).--Aschlafly 19:06, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
What do you mean that it is not random? Are you saying that everything is directed by God's hand? Doesn't that go against the concept of choice? What is beautiful Mr. Schlafly? Rellik 21:58, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Randomness never achieves beauty. Never. Prove me wrong if you can, and don't cite something that is a mixture of randomness and guidance by something not random.--Aschlafly 22:06, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Tell me what you consider random and I will name something for you. Rellik 22:31, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I think some of the "critics" here have a point, but it's only a small point that doesn't belie the larger points. It's essentially true that no child can be genetically superior than it's parents. Okay, perhaps the recessive genes example is sort of an exception to that, but it's only an exception in the sense of how those genes are expressed; the child doesn't actually have any better genes than the parents.

And the argument of GaryK's that if no child can be genetically superior is true, then life would have "progressed" backwards is begging the question. That is, there are those of us who believe that life is going backwards (genetically), and that this is one reason why microbe-to-main evolution is false: because the evidence is that no child can be genetically superior, which is contrary to the belief that evolution has occurred. And to make this point stronger, in recent years a prominent geneticist has become a creationist for this very reason: because he realised that the evidence of genetic defects accumulating in the human genome faster than they were being eliminated means that (a) we are devolving rather than evolving, and (b) this could not have been going on for millions of years, else the accumulation of defects in that time would long ago have proved fatal. The fact that we haven't accumulated sufficient defects yet to destroy the human race means that the human race cannot be that old.

As for beauty from randomness: well, they say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so that's very subjective. That is, if an artist throws paint at an canvas, some will consider it a thing of beauty, whilst others will think they only reason to hang the painting on the wall is because they can't hang the artist.

But despite saying that, I would reject GaryK's claim that randomness is the very essence of beauty. Paint-throwing artists and similar things excepted, most things considered beautiful are actually very non-random (e.g. the vast majority of paintings) or are living thing (e.g. flowers) that we would consider created, not the product of randomness.

Philip J. Rayment 08:20, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Just with respect to the point about accumulating defects faster than being eliminated, could this be because the human species is no longer evolving? We now provide medical care for those with genetic defects which allows them to survive for significantly longer than they would have in the wild, and provide pretty much equal opportunity to breed and hence pass these defects onto future generations. This effectively eliminates the selecting agents which would have eliminated the genetic defects from the genome. This has only started occuring in earnest in the last 150 years, so while defects may be accumulating at a rate that would have doomed the human race had the timespan of the accumulation been millions of years, it has been significantly less, and therefore this observation could fit in with the theory of evolution. StatsMsn 08:29, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Good suggestion, but no, it's not because we are no longer evolving. The scientist concerned came to his conclusions on the basis of mathematical models which assumed the elimination of defective genes in accordance with natural selection. Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

A can of paint (most likely a special paint mixture) thrown against a canvas is neither random nor beautiful. Look, feel free to list what you think are the ten most beautiful things in life or what are popularly recognized as the ten most beautiful things in life, and you'll see that none are random. Beauty is the opposite of randomness.--Aschlafly 09:46, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I've always known the opposite of beauty to be ugliness and the opposite of randomness to be direction. One can paint an obscene picture with guidance. Just because it is guided, doesn't mean it is beautiful. So why shouldn't something that is random be beautiful, too? Kilmarnock 12:15, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
It's because of the way we humans define "beauty". What we usually find beautiful involves order and symmetry. Now, I'm not arguing that some people may find certain frames of snowflakes on their TV mesmerizing, but most of us think that some semblance of order and symmetry is aesthetically pleasing. ATang 12:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree about crystals being beautiful. Does our article explain what mixture of random and orderly processes creates the symmetry so many of us find beautiful in, for example, snowflakes? If not, it should. --Ed Poor Talk 13:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed, that's a good point about snowflakes! There is randomness in snowflakes and crystals, but of course there are also the atomic and molecular properties that actually guide their formation; I suppose in this respect it's not completely random, hence beauty can arise in mixed cases like that. Feebasfactor 19:07, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh... By snowflakes on the TV I meant when the input is not connected to anything (i.e. no signal).
I don't think there are random processes in crystal structures (or any structure for that matter... fluids included), as those are defined by molecular bond angles, which are in turn defined by electron densities of the atoms (and hence, the Schrodinger equation). I guess the only random process would be when you're taking into account of probability calculations within that equation, but I think the outcome of almost all of the electron positions would result in the same crystal lattice. (One could argue that there's an infinitesimal chance that electron flies out to a point in space where it fights against a certain bond angle, but those are rare and only theoretically possible). ATang 13:13, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I think you're confusing "snowflakes" with "snow". Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Oops. I was looking for "white-noise" or "static" with regards to the TV, but the terms evaded me at that moment. ATang 10:27, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Sure, there are many things with symmetry that are beautiful, but so many aspect of nature appeal to human aesthetics and many aspect of nature are unguided and random. The only guiding aspect are scientific law and that is much to abstract to create something aesthetically appealing. That is what seperates natural beauty (such as a landscape) from artificial beauty (such as a painting). The only aspect of nature that isn't random is really just scientific law. However, scientific law is quite abstract so it leaves much randomness to the rest of nature. So it is incorrect to say that the opposite of beauty is randomness. Kilmarnock 17:10, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
You're reasoning backwards from a conclusion rather than viewing the matter open-mindedly. Nothing random is beautiful, and no one has given an example yet. But you are saying that because you believe nature is random, and nature is often beautiful, that randomness can be beautiful. You're simply clinging to your belief that nature is random rather than looking at randomness and beauty issue objectively.--Aschlafly 18:48, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I haven't tried providing an example because, as I said, beauty is subjective, and if I did provide an example, you could quite rightly say that (for you) it's not beautiful. But I will try anyway. Whilst I would attribute the beauty of a flower to God's designing it to be beautiful, I would not attribute the beauty of a landscape to God's design, because He didn't design the individual landscape and, as far as we know, he didn't design any mechanism to cause it to be beautiful. But another aspect is that this is not an "either/or" situation. An artist throwing paint at a canvas (most likely ordinary paint, not a special mixture) is not doing so totally randomly; to do so he would have to be blindfolded and spun around first, or something like that. So there is some order/design involved. However, beyond that, the precise manner in which the paint lands is essentially random. So some things that are considered by some at least to be "beautiful" were generated by a mixture of design and randomness. The same actually applies with things like flowers, which were originally designed, but the individual flowers were produced with an element of randomness (the particular genes they inherited, the particular nutrients in the soils in which they were planted, etc.) Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I must say the same for your reasoning not being open-minded, instead being backwards. Nature appeals to aesthetics. However, it is not guided by anything but chance. One may find the formation of a vast cumulus cloud to be beautiful. However, that cloud from a purely scientific perspective is merely a meteorological phenomenon and is only formed by chance. By only looking at a natural phenomenon as aesthetically appealing and clinging to the idea that randomness cannot create beauty is an argument that lacks objectivity because you are basing this view merely on the subjectivity of artificial beauty (beauty not created by nature). Kilmarnock 19:34, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
You are not addressing the issue of whether randomness can be beautiful and instead are simply restating in a murky way your disbelief in God.--Aschlafly 21:33, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
The word chance is merely used by fools to cover their ignorance i n regards to a natural phenomenons causes in regards to its origination. There is such a thing as probability but Kilmarnock has yet to show that that the evolutionary fairy of "chance" can create anything. Conservative 21:50, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I am addressing randomness on the basis of nature, which can create beauty. But if you make the claim that randomness is the opposite of beauty or that randomness cannot possibly create beauty, you should be able to support this claim. Otherwise, if you address such natural phenomena considered to be aesthetically appealing as the work of a higher power, you must first verify the existence of such a power and whether or not this power is ubiquitously designing all natural phenomena that is aesthetically appealing (i.e. digress to a theological debate).
To User:Conservative, designating those that express a point as fools covering their own ignorance without actually addressing the argument at hand is an ad hominem and a sign of weakness. The argument at hand is that randomness could not possibly create beauty. I cite natural phenomena as a rebuttal, but if you disagree and believe that all phenomena of natural beauty is the work of a supreme being, you would first have to show that the theological fairy of "omnipresence" and "omnipotence" can create anything. Kilmarnock 23:15, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Random assignment is a beautiful, elegant solution to a complicated problem. And anyway, as has been said above, beauty is subjective. Maybe for some people it is impossible for something random to be beautiful, but it's not universally true. Murray 23:56, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree. Beauty comes from a subjective perspective; but this shouldn't suggest that beauty cannot come from an objective source. Kilmarnock 00:40, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, obviously randomness cannot create beauty. The Aurora Borealis or a snowflake might be beautiful, but they're not random because every ray of light or every crystal of snow has been handcrafted by Jesus and delivered to earth by a choir of angels. Of course, if there's nothing random then this is theologically troubling since this also means that God must have actively created all the evil in the world (the Ebola virus, Smallpox, down syndrome, etc). Beautyistruth 00:58, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Handcrafted by Jesus? How exactly did you come up with this assertion? Even according to Christian legend, Jesus of Nazareth is not omnipotent or omnipresent. Make no mistake, Jesus is not a metonym for "God" and even Trinitarians know that. Kilmarnock 01:18, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Beautyistruth, you have yet to show that the ultimate cause of snowflakes is created by the fairy chance. Show me one airtight example of how "chance" did something. Now there is such a thing as probability. For example, the probability of a coin coming up heads is 50%. But does chance make a coin come up heads. No, it does not. A coin coming up heads has causes (force applied by flipper of coin, wind speed, etc. ). Bottom line you cannot show me one thing in the universe that was created by "chance". I would also ask you to name one planet with an abundance of water besides the earth where snowflakes do arise. I have two words for you in regards to an abundance of water on the earth - Privilidged Planet. Conservative 03:18, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Conservative do you know why he won't be able to name another planet with water and snow on it like the earth. Because our methods for detecting planets is only useful if you get very lucky, or it is a very large planet. There are two ways to do it. An astronomer will watch a star and measure the amount of light it gives off. If a planet comes in between the star and the earth the astronomer can detect a slight dip in the amount of light that reaches earth. That method give more conclusive evidence of planets if there is a very large one. The other method used is called the doppler effect. The doppler effect works by measuring the spectrum of the light emitted from a star. A planet can cause a small shift in the position of a star. If the shift is away from the earth the light from the star will be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. If the planet shifts the star towards the earth it is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum. The current instruments used are only effective in detecting Jupiter sized planets and up. So right now we are incapable of detecting a earth sized planet in the habitable zone around a star. When the technology capable of detecting earth sized planets arrives I guarantee there will be discovered another planet with abundant water. Rellik 13:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't really know what Conservative was driving at, but I did presume that he might have been talking about other planets in the Solar system. Beyond that, your faith in what will be discovered in future is touching. Philip J. Rayment 23:28, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how User:Beautyistruth suggests that snowflakes are created by chance after the "handcrafted by Jesus" comment, unless he or she is being sacastic (judging by the "God created evil" comments). Kilmarnock 12:01, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Beautyistruth was clearly being sarcastic. Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I had assumed as much. Kilmarnock 02:22, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

"It is only the closed minded that refuse to accept the idea that randomness is beautiful"

Girls playing sports may reduce breast cancer

We already know that girls should have babies to reduce the risk of breast cancer; ergo abortion causes breast cancer.

This study shows that exercise/sports reduces the risk of breast cancer! Ergo, opposing womens' sports causes breast cancer.

No? And what are your feelings on women in sports?-LLort 01:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

That's an interesting study, and I'd agree with that logic to some degree... but you don't have to be so abrasive about it. Feebasfactor 11:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I think we'd all expect exercise to help in reducing cancer. But girls should not be pushed into particular competitive sports that are dangerous for them without first telling them the risks.--Aschlafly 18:28, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I totally agree ASchlafly - girls today are doing absurd things in school. Decades of vicious feminism even has young girls in schools boxing! Can you believe that?! I think it's ridiculous! What lady ever boxed?! Of course track athletics and tennis are a good idea to build strength and fitness, but being able to throw punches is not a desirous trait in any young lady. I think all contact sports, like boxing, kickboxing, martial arts, soccer, football, or softball should be removed from girl's school programs, and girls should be encouraged back into more traditional classes like Home Economics, Healthcare, and Cooking. MarianS 19:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I hope you are joking. Rellik 20:28, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I most certainly am not joking, Rellik, and you and your liberal types need to understand that women and men were always meant to be different. What's good for a man is not necessarily good for a woman. Women shouldn't be boxing, women shouldn't be fighting in the frontlines of wars (although a backroom or administrative military career is an excellent choice for a young woman), women shouldn't be doing a lot of things, for many reasons. Women are mentally strong, most certainly, but not as physically strong as men, and they shouldn't be building their bodies up like men to compensate. And most importantly, the right place for a woman is in the home, raising a family in a close-knit God-fearing and loving home - God made her for this, and her physical and mental health is at its best when she does this. MarianS 14:08, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree that women shouldn't be boxing. But men shouldn't be either. The Bible doesn't say that "the right place for a woman is in the home, raising a family in a close-knit God-fearing and loving home". It says that God made women to be helpers for men. So perhaps that means that women should be on the battlefield alongside their husbands! I'm not being serious here, but making the point that the Bible does indicate that men and women have specific purposes and roles, but not necessarily the ones that you ascribe to them. Philip J. Rayment 01:31, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry I have difficulties telling the difference between parodists and parodied on this site. You obviously never played a sport. Sports do a lot more than "building their bodies up like men to compensate." Sports help people make friends, and teaches the value of teamwork.
"God made her for this, and her physical and mental health is at its best when she does this." If you are going to make a statement like this get some data to back it up. Have you ever heard the joke "Why are womens' feet so small? So they can stand closer to the oven." You seem to be referencing this. Do you believe that women are the property of their husbands? Rellik 01:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

WHOA WHOA!!! Lets not knock boxing!! Boxing is great! AdenJ 01:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Beating someone up should not be a sport, and I'll punch the lights out of anyone who disagrees! Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Boxing is not about just beating someone up! I know Mike Tyson is a crooked criminal however boxing takes skill, passion, effort and determination. You need mind, training and a will to win! AdenJ 08:08, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, we know that women playing sports turns them into lesbians. So if women playing sports also reduces breast cancer, then Schlafly logic dictates that being a lesbian reduces breast cancer. Beautyistruth 00:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Beautyistruth, you should know better as liberals are obsessed with the Conservapedia homosexuality articles and one of those articles cites a medical journal stating that lesbians are far more likely to be obese. In addition, women who are obese are more likely to get breast cancer.[6] Therefore, there is evidence that suggest that the lesbian population is more likely to get breast cancer! In short, there is evidence to suggest that if the lesbian women played more hopskotch with girls like the heterosexual women do, instead of eating lots of twinkies in their lazy-boy chairs, they would get less breast cancer than heterosexual women do! In addition, lesbians are more likely to smoke than heterosexual women at least in the USA (and it wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes smoked big cigars like men folk sometimes do). Women who smoke are at greater risk of breast cancer. Therefore, there is evidence to suggest that the lesbian population is once again at greater risk for breast cancer than the heterosexual women population! Conservative 04:42, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Sociologists know that many factors correlate with each other. It's absurd to say that one thing alone causes another, when there are multiple factors influencing each other. For example, "being black" correlates with an average of 10 to 15 lower points on IQ tests. Does this mean a race-change operation would increase a black man's intelligence? Nonsense.

Intelligence, first of all has multiple aspects. Academic achievement, as well as reasoning ability in general, is affected by emotional factors such as confidence, pride, being well-regarded by others, etc. Some social groups provide more of this than others, in addition to other things such as parents requiring children to do all homework before turning on a TV, paying for tutors, etc.

There is no evidence that Asians and whites are inherently smarter than Hispanics and Blacks. Upbringing and schooling are crucially important. It makes no sense - except perhaps to Eugenics advocates - to think race alone or even most of all determines how smart a child grows up to be.

We have to keep sight of the ideal: a smart, healthy, happy adult. Then the question is, How do we help the younger generation fulfill that ideal? This is where conservatives and liberals disagree. Liberals say, let the kid watch TV, experiment with drugs and fornication, and tell him that he is not responsible for his actions (because of Determinism) and not accountable to any person (especially not to God; see Materialism). Then when this all results in misery, where are liberals to pick up the pieces? Their only answer is more taxes and more government spending. Basically, it means they don't care.

Conservatism is compassionate and it demands accountability. Conservatives teach children to take responsibility for their actions and to grow up with enough self-discipline to complete school and provide for their families. Basically, they care more. --Ed Poor Talk 10:30, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's fair to say that liberals don't care about their children as much as conservatives, nor do I think that liberals teach the kids to be irresponsible. Broad, over-simplified classifications such as this is what I try to avoid. One can teach responsibility without introducing God - now of course, I don't have personal experience raising a child, but I didn't grow up in a religious household, and I'm not running around committing crimes.
You're the one who stated that one cannot draw causality from one correlation datum point, but then you go on to say that a liberal upbringing causes irresponsibility and leads to misery. That's one broad stroke. ATang 10:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Ed Poor was making it out to be more black and white than it really is, but he was on the right track. And ATang is right to call him on that polarisation. However, although one can teach responsibility without introducing God, without God there is no absolute basis for responsibility. Without God, who are we ultimately responsible to? No-one. "Liberals" don't teach their kids to be irresponsible (most of the time), but (a) this is partly because western society has a Christian heritage that taught responsibility, and although liberals reject the Christianity they haven't yet followed through with rejecting all the benefits that come from that, and (b) they don't teach the ultimate basis of responsibility: that we are answerable to our Creator. Philip J. Rayment 01:31, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

A respectful question about Chirstianity

I have asked this question to members of several different religions, but never got an answer from a Christian person.

Why do you assume that the writings in your holy book are definate truth? Surely, if indeed they are based in absolute truth, extremists could have edited versions of the bible hundreds of years ago to represent their views instead of those of the original writers?

And why is it certain that the original writings, especially those of the earliest writers, e.g. Moses, were commanded by God, or were simply a vehical of their own opinions to convince as many others as possible?

IDontBelieveInGod 06:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

What makes you think that we "assume" that the Bible is definite truth? We believe it for many good reasons, and this is not the place to detail all of those. But the Bible has been researched more than any other ancient book, and surviving manuscripts have been compared to see what, if any, changes have occurred. The Dead Sea Scrolls included copies of parts of the Old Testament considerably older than any other extant copies, and these showed that very little had changed (and nothing of significance). Further, we know that the Jews revered (what Christians call) the Old Testament so highly that they went to great lengths to ensure that new copies were identical to the documents they were copying. Not all the writers are known for certain, but we have confidence that the writings of Moses were indeed written by him, partly because Jesus (Who is God and does not make mistakes) referred to them as such. Philip J. Rayment 06:46, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Some fundamentalists, like myself, are convinced that the Bible is the only definite truth. As Philip said, I don't assume; there is proof for the accuracy of the Bible. However, even if there had been less proof, something must be true somewhere, and I pick this Book. The Bible was written over the course of thousands of years by scores of different men, and yet it has no errors, internally or externally. If anything is the manifestation of God's truth this is. Other holy books may contain truth, but I have seen the Lord change my life and other men's lives, permanantly, through the Gospel. So I choose this one. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:06, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, I've seen different religions change different people's lives... So that wasn't a criterion that helps me make a decision. ATang 12:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
He was talking about changing lives for the better! :-)
A bit more seriously, I read a story once (which was supposed to be true and sounds likely, in my opinion, but I can't actually vouch for it's accuracy, and this is from vague memory) in which an atheist invited a Christian minister to have a debate. The minister said that he would accept on one condition. He would bring along to the debate 100 people who's lives had been transformed by Christianity, including reformed criminals, people who had pulled themselves out of poverty with God's help, etc., and the atheist had to bring along ten people for whom atheism had done the same. The atheist pursued the matter no further.
Philip J. Rayment 08:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Philip, the Dead Sea Scrolls also confirm that a great deal that might have been included in the Bible was excluded, for whatever reasons. PTBairns 10:17, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Specifics please. Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't have access to my books on the subject at the moment, but there were many examples of text that were different from the books now accepted as parts of the Bible, but identical to texts characterized as gnostic and heretical earlier in the history of the church. This might suggest that reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls is not the best way to prove the accuracy of the Bible. PTBairns 12:07, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
You are mistaken. I had the opportunity to attend one of the exhibits of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their mirroring of Bible texts where the earliest copies we previously had were 1000 years later was uncanny. Also your time line is off. Most of the gnostic heresies took place hundreds of years later. Learn together 17:25, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
In that I am afraid you are mistaken. Collected by the Essenes, who were not even a Christian sect, the Dead Sea Scrolls include a number of apocryphal and gnostic texts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PTBairns (talk)
I suspect that your reference to "history of the church" had Learn together believing that you were talking about the Christian church, and I believe that he is correct that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate that. And he also said "Most of" the gnostic heresies took place later. Perhaps the Essenes did have some other gnostic heresies. But I think that's a red herring, anyway. Nobody is saying that the Essenes didn't also have non-biblical books. Rather, the biblical books they had showed that the Bible hadn't changed. Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
PJR, I was looking for that story as I read it also(the debate story). Do you remember the country in which it took place? Do you remember the time period? Do you remember any details that would enable me to Google search it? If not, could you ask around in respect to your Christian friends as I have asked my friends and the best I could come up with is people who vaguely remember reading the story. Conservative 10:30, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
It took place in London, or somewhere around there, probably early in the 20th century, if not earlier. I remember where I read it; all I have to do is find it again, but I probably can. Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
It may be that the atheist can's specifically point to people "saved" by atheism bacause that is not the role or goal of atheism. It is true that the structure of a religious faith can pull some people out of the gutter. The strict rules and disciplines imposed by a religious outlook can provide a source of guidance. But that guidance doesn't need to be the end of a persons growth as a human being. M. Scott Peck (a christian) described stages of spiritual growth in his book "The Road Less Traveled". A nice summary is below.

Peck postulates that there are four stages of human spiritual development:

Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.

Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith. Once children learn to obey their parents, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.

Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and inquisitivity. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III.

Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith but does so because of genuine belief. Stage IV people are labelled as Mystics. Peck argues that while transitions from Stage I to Stage II are sharp, transitions from Stage III to Stage IV are gradual. Nonetheless, these changes are very noticeable and mark a significant difference in the personality of the individual.

Looking at spirituality this way, a person who is a skeptic and maybe even an atheist might simply be more secure in their spirituality enough to move away from the restrictions of a fundamental religious viewpoint. MAnderson 17:10, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

You describe Peck as a Christian, and thereby imply that his book is from a Christian perspective, but he became a Christian in 1980 and he wrote that in 1978 when he was was apparently still a Buddhist. Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Apparently that is true. I don't believe that he ever retracted or restated this perspective. In any case, I was merely trying to state that fundamental religous values can have some positive effects but the fact that other philosophies might not isn't an indictment of those philosophies. Atheist still teach there children to follow rules because they recognize that rules are what children need. The same goes for drug addicts, people in poverty, criminals and other who lack the ability to think independently. Lot's of people credit the military for straightening out their lives. Why? Because the military provides a strict set of rules, values and controls. Same deal as basic religious beliefs. MAnderson 11:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Also, a respectful question for Philip, do you believe that no religion other than Christianity has changed people's lives for the better? PTBairns 11:11, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll answer this later. Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll answer frankly, but differently from how Philip will answer. The Bible says that all religions ultimatly send the people trusting in them to hell. (Eph. 2:8,9) Only faith in Jesus will save; trusting in your physical works is not enough to take you to heaven. No matter what church you go to, or synagouge, or even how many orphans you feed, you are doomed without Christ. It may be narrow minded, but only belief in the Word of God and Jesus' blood will bring Salvation. Religion may bring temporary happiness and change to people's lives, but the Relationship with God is eternal. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 18:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 18:02, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, Steven for your insight. However, Hell is punishment that takes place in the aferlife. My question is whether people have become kinder, more forgiving and improved themselves in this life as the result of another religion? PTBairns 10:43, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh- yeah, *sheepish grin*, sorry. The other religions may provide an improved life on earth, but what is that worth in the perspective of eternity? --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:10, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

My answer to PTBairns: Various things can change people's lives for the better, including tragic circumstances and false religions. But Christianity has the runs on the board for doing this in way that far exceeds that of other religions, as has been acknowledged even by agnostics. See for example The biblical origins of science and Countering Christophobia. From the latter:

...despotic tyranny, slavery, racism and environmental destruction have been practised all around the world for most of history. Only in the West, however, did humanity begin to rise up against these behaviours. And it was Christians, and often only Christians, who led the charge against them.

Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Yahoo users more conservative than Google users

Yahoo users are more like to use Conservapedia than Google users

  • Google #001 Yahoo # 01 Conservapedia
  • Google #001 Yahoo # 01 Professor Values
  • Google #002 Yahoo # 06 Homosexuality (Why the heck are liberals interested in Homosexuality so much)
  • Google #00003 Yahoo #001 Massachusetts liberal
  • Google #00003 Yahoo #002 Young Earth Creationism
  • Google #00005 Yahoo #005 Liberal
  • Google #00005 Yahoo #004 Theory of Evolution
  • Google #00006 Yahoo #001 Liberal Bias
  • Google #00023 Yahoo #008 Richard Dawkins
  • Google #00009 Yahoo #003 Joseph McCarthy
  • Google #00011(#5 as of March 23) Yahoo #004 Atheism
  • Google #00011 Yahoo #007 Creationism
  • Google #00012 Yahoo #002 Old Earth Creationism
  • Google #00013 Yahoo #013 Abortion
  • Google #00014 Yahoo #006 Conservative
  • Google #00019 Yahoo #001 Liberal denial
  • Google #00024 Yahoo #007 Scopes Trial
  • Google #00046 Yahoo #008 Deceit
  • Google #00180 Yahoo #011 Chinese Communist Party
  • Google #00287 Yahoo #019 Orthodox Judaism
  • Google #00306 Yahoo #010 United States of America
  • Google #00338 Yahoo #021 Jesus
  • Google #00724 Yahoo #007 The Gospels
  • Google #1000+ Yahoo #165 Moses
  • Google #1000+ Yahoo #033 Muhammad
  • Google #1000+ Yahoo #015 Russian Federation

(I figured out which articles to search for from a list on a user's page) -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe you are confused about how google ranks searches. They put weight on how many people link to that and the quality of the site doing the linking. What you are seeing is people mocking the homosexuality articles in blogs.[7] The question asked should not be "why do liberals search for it so much" but rather "why is it so throughly linked on conservapedia" (it appears that Conservative is much more interested in homosexuality than most liberals are) - that also raises the ranking. The more sites that link to it, the higher it goes up. It is not about how many people search for it. Likewise searching for nearly unique strings will find the page that has that string. No one else talks about professor values or liberal denial and so finding this will show up conservapedia at the top of the list. What is shown is simply a difference in how the search engines work and weight sites. --Rutm 13:41, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Rutm as I have also been told that the various search engines using different methodologies and that Google uses inbound links heavily as a ranking factor. However, Rutm has failed to mention that conservatives link to our articles as well. However, since liberals are quite illogical, it is certainly true that liberals often use the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule rather than truly address the material in Conservapedia's articles. I believe Andy has noted this and mentioned that liberals are over reliant on mockery. I would also point out that many liberals are quite gullible and completely bought into the view counts of various articles that were pumped up via a computer automated program or programs which inflated the view counts (it also appears as if liberals used the robot or robots). Conservative 14:00, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Those wacky, wacky liberals!... In any case, congratulations. Regardless of variations in Google rank depending on computer-specific factors, your work does seem to have paid off to some degree at least. Feebasfactor 18:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Article of the year?

What implications does this have? I mean, sure, huzzah, shiny title, but what does it mean? (And why do we get the Article of the Year in MAY? And why was there no announcement prior to this? We could've collaborated on a few articles to put up as candidates. Seriously, you'd expect more buzz around this prior to the post-action announcement...) (And "[g]iven the recent release of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", wouldn't it make more sense to make the Expelled article the article of the year? Or Intelligent design maybe?) Will this mean that Atheism will be on the front page for the remainder of the year? Tell me it ain't so... --JBrown 18:38, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

JBrown, while the Intelligent design article is a fine work the main author of the article wishes to do additional work to the article. Plus there are other lesser considerations as well that needn't be mentioned. JBrown, I would love to see the atheism article be featured on the main page as the article of the year for 6 months. I likely will also be adding some additional material to the article in regards to a current leading proponent of atheism who resides in the USA. Perhaps, I will greatly expand the atheism article as well like I greatly expanded the homosexuality article. There is certainly enough folly and unadulterated bunk in relation to atheism for such an expansion to be possible. Conservative 19:28, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Uh... okay! I sorta think that's totally over the top (in regards to both the frontpage-duration and the planned expansion), but you certainly seem to be... enthusiastic about it, so I'll simply wish you the best with this project! --JBrown 19:42, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I find the message unclear. Is it Conservapedia's article? JArmstrong 22:41, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Gentleman JBrown, I am sorry to hear you found my commentary to be totally over the top. Yet, at the same time it has been said that cowards die a thousand deaths before they die, the valiant die but once.  :) Therefore, with this in mind, I believe I should be willing to risk being perceived as going over totally over the top at times when all I am doing is merely informing the public in regards to various issues. And I would certainly derive some satisfaction in regards to better informing the public in regards to the issue of atheism given the amount of atheists claptrap that is polluting the internet. Conservative 23:54, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
(slight undent) I originally wanted to simply step away from this, but since you saw the need to address me directly...
Gentleman Conservative, I didn't find your commentary, but rather your intentions totally over the top. The Atheism article is already very long (roughly 70k characters of wikisourcecode), so when you want to "greatly expand" it, it will most likely end up in the 90k-100k character region. Maybe this quote will help:
We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.
And I think featuring the Atheism article on the front page for the next half year will look too static, and the "Article of the Year" thing looks a bit silly once you realize that there was never any sort of competition or actual community input/effort (you apparently asked some sysops behind the scenes, which makes John Doe users like me feel slightly left out). Also, I fear that having two featured articles on the front page will make it look cluttered. We will see a return of the regular "Article of the Month", yes?
And what makes your cause and needs greater than those of anybody else? I'm pretty sure people worked long and hard on their entries and would like to inform the public about those things, too. And yet you effectively decided that your article deserves the (from what I know) highest honor any Conservapedia article has ever had and that it will remain on the front page all year long.
Like I said, I won't stand in the way of somebody with lots of enthusiasm, but it reflects badly on the way things are run here when the community is left in the dark about such important issues. Then again, it appears that it's more important what you want than what lowly non-sysops like me feel would be good. --JBrown 07:05, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Just a minor correction: Prior to Atheism being made "article of the year", it was labelled "article of the month", but prior to that we had a weekly "featured article", not a regular "article of the month". Philip J. Rayment 02:26, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I knew of it being "Article of the Month" (featured out of the regular order by the sysop who also made it "Article of the Year" now, going by the template history), but I didn't know that we had a weekly feature before that. Thanks for that historical tidbit! :) --JBrown 06:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
See Conservapedia:Featured articles. Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
How interesting! Assuming that the Article of the Year hasn't rendered this list obsolete, I'll watch it and see if/how I can contribute! --JBrown 14:30, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Clinton leading in delegates?

As far as I am aware, the delegates from Florida and Michigan are not enough to put Clinton in the lead, just to bring her a lot closer. The numbers I know of are:

  • Florida: Clinton 105 - Obama 67
  • Michigan: Clinton 73 - Obama 0 (not on the ballot)

Which would gain Clinton 111 delegates. Numbers on Obama's current lead (excluding FL and MI) are generally around 170. Are there additional issues of which I am unaware that would put Clinton in the lead if FL and MI are counted? HermanH 06:38, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I saw an analysis a few days ago (and I think I linked to it then on the Main Page) which showed Clinton ahead counting Michigan and Florida. It's possible that has changed, but the basic point remains the same: assuming Michigan and Florida will count, Obama is nowhere near having won the contest yet.--Aschlafly 11:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Slate Magazine has a tool for calculating delegates: [8]. Obama leads her by a large margin. It doesn't include superdelegate endorsements, but Obama now slightly leads Clinton in those.
Thanks Aschafly, found the link you mentioned above in the news archive. In that article, the Clinton campaign asserts that including MI and FL she is ahead in the popular vote. Not the same as the delegate count, but an easy mistake to make. Can someone update that? HermanH 14:24, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
That's not the link where someone counted the delegates including Michigan and Florida. I reviewed that count and Clinton was ahead by several dozen. I can't find the link now, and your count above is off by over a hundred. Michigan and Florida have a grand total of 368 delegates, not the 245 you suggest. That difference more than offsets the lead you give to Obama.--Aschlafly 20:01, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I did not mean to suggest that there were only 245 delegates for MI and FL. The above only include Clinton and Obama numbers. In michigan, 40% voted uncommitted, a further 55 delegates. In Florida, Edwards picked up 13 delegates. Then there are 28 superdelegates in Michigan, and 25 in Florida, which makes a total of 366. I found this recent AP news article, which contains a lot of these numbers.
I'm sorry if anyone was offended. The headline struck me as strange, and when I found the link I mentioned above, I just figured it was a simple mix-up between delegate count and popular vote. The headline remains an equally valid critique of Rasmussen's decision either way. If you do find the correct link you were referring to, I'd still be interested. Regards, HermanH 12:18, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

See [9] for more reading. Lyra Belaqua talk 13:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I read your link to the pro-Obama story. The story is a waste of time to read and adds no insights.
HermanH, no one was offended and you made a good point. Thank you although I disagreed with your original statement.--Aschlafly 14:25, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to take my articles back

I looked around the site today properly for the first time and was frankly amazed at some of the lunatical articles I seen. (I even saw one called 'Professor Values', which, I can guarantee was written by somebody who has never undergone higher education) As a result, I request that I be allowed to remove all the articles I have contributed to Conservapedia; I was under the impression that this was an encyclopedia aimed at conservatives, with a conservative slant on the issues. Now I realise its just a hate site and want no involvement in it. LChriosa 08:37, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

You mean, that when you donated your articles to this project, you had a mental reservation? I'm not sure whether donations can be taken back. I'm a bit taken aback at your approach; I wonder whether you (1) wrote all these articles yourself, as promised; and (2) had planned all along to make the above comment. You said at first that you "came across the project a while back". I guess even after 5 years of "retirement" you had no time to distinguish between genuine conservatism and "hate".
Anyway, since you didn't license your contributions with a "take back" proviso, it's up to the project director. But typically only liberals brand their ideological opponents as filled with "hate". Conservatives prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and work together for openly stated common aims. --Ed Poor Talk 10:09, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your timely reply. I will not respond to the personal attack, but I will reassure you that I wrote those articles. The reason I want them removed is because I am using my real name on this website (Liam Chriosa) and therefore don't want to have my name associated with a project I disagree with.

If this were an intellectual project, aimed at providing the conservative viewpoint in a trustworthy encyclopedia, I'd be more than happy to contribute these articles and hundreds more. Instead this website seems determined to continue the culture wars of the 90s deep into the 21st century. Americans don't need this division anymore, and I don't want my name associated with it. LChriosa 10:16, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

You have now made two accusations. First, you accused our project of not being aimed at conservatives or providing the conservative viewpoint. Now you accuse me of making a personal attack. Well, the burden of proof is on you to show that you are who you say you are: you did not provide an email address and your name is not in Google.
Liberals use all sorts of tricks to deflect criticism of their absurd and unworkable positions on the issues. Ad hominem accusations against their critics seems especially popular right now. Are you a conservative? If not, why did you come here in the first place? --Ed Poor Talk 10:40, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

You are unlikely to find my name online since I haven't been active in the academic field in five years. I never claimed to be a conservative by the way. I don't think branding people is particularly useful, as most people have a combination of Liberal and Conservative beliefs.

I came here because I had read that this place aimed to provide information to homeschooled children. I thought my donation may have helped. I couldn't understand this sentance either; "Liberals use all sorts of tricks to deflect criticism of their absurd and unworkable positions on the issues. Ad hominem accusations against their critics seems especially popular right now." How is this related to me wanting to get my articles removed? LChriosa 11:41, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

You are unlikely to find my name online since I haven't been active in the academic field in five years And no publications, either? This all seems very strange. Bradlaugh 11:42, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Typically lecturers don't publish all that much. I co-written books on Rousseau under a different name (Mainly because I enjoy the privacy of writing under a different name, you don't get insulted like I just did by Ed Poor for one of my articles). Typically, the average lecturer will publish maybe five to ten academic articles in some journals in his career, along with one or two books. Its uncommon to see more than that. I am currently putting together some notes for a short memoir, and will include my experience on this website. Thank you for expressing an interest. LChriosa 11:51, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

"... typically only liberals brand their ideological opponents as filled with "hate". Conservatives prefer to give the benefit of the doubt ..." (snapping fingers) I got it! There are two Conservapedias, and you're talking about the other one! Because that statement is not what I'd call very descriptive of the articles here.--Frey 15:08, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

"LChriosa", making false accusations against this site is not a way to get someone to help you. One cannot withdraw a contribution to a wiki like this site any more than one can take back a cornerstone from a building after construction. This is obvious and also part of the disclosure and consent language for contributors. However, another user here has kindly suggested the possibility of your changing your name here, which I can consider. If you're sincere, then that should resolve your concerns.--Aschlafly 19:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
So, according to your last post here which was subsequently deleted, you lied about writing the articles yourself, you lied about your motives, you lied about being a retired lecturer, you lied about other things, and you plagiarised your contributions, but you have the gall to criticise this site! Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

China Earthquake?

I could be missing something, but I have seen nothing regarding the tragedy that struck China in recent days/weeks. On the front page of the news headlines, however, I see at least two entries regarding Hilary Clinton's victory in West Virginia, both of which say the same thing. If this is to become a respectable conservative encyclopedia (and it has a LONG way to go), I should have an easier time finding one update on China than finding two entries about Clinton's victory in a primary. --Capolavoro046 19:52, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, they haven't found a way to blame earthquakes on liberal values, yet.--Frey 14:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
The news headlines are basically all about the elections. There are people dying by the thousands in China and Myanmar from natural disasters and they are suffering and are in need of basic necessities. Even more people are dying from starvation in poverty-striken places. Ask yourselves this question: What would Jesus do if he were here today? Would he be more concern about the elections or the mass suffering of people worldwide?--私は 15:24, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
I'd think that the two tragedies make for a very important study in contrasts. The normally insular government of China has readily acknowledged the scope of the earthquake disaster, and is opening up access to governments and agencies who are offering assistance because they understand the cost of delay. [10] The junta that runs Burma, tragically, is still keeping the vast majority of aid being offered away from those who need it most because of their obsession with control. It's so bad there that it's prompting a debate as to whether the U.N. would be justified in intervening with a sovereign nation, by force if necessary, when the powers in charge are willing to let tens of thousands die for the sake of their own self-interest. [11] --DinsdaleP 16:38, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
To be fair, there had been one news item about the Myanmar case, though it was about the government turning down US aid: See May 12 here. --JBrown 16:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
It may be true that there was 1 mention of Myanmar, there is no mention of China. Plus, the news headlines are way too flooded with the words Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democrats, and liberals. (Mind I remind that the words Democrats and liberals have negative connotations here.)--私は 16:58, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

California Supreme Court Decision

It was interesting to note that while the decision to allow same-sex marriage was by a 4-3 split of the justices, the panel itself is composed of six republicans and one democrat, and is considered to be right-of-center in most situations. There is not a liberal on the court, and only one was appointed by a Democratic governor.[12] The republican governor has stated that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. [13] While many conservatives are upset by this decision, they need to take the time to look into why a non-liberal, right-of-center court reached this decision, and decide if this is an issue that can be addressed from a legislative approach at all. --DinsdaleP 17:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

There are lots of liberal Republicans, and there is a problem of judicial supremacy that distorts the work of all but conservatives.--Aschlafly 18:30, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Notably, the California legislature has twice passed a same-sex marriage bill, and Arnold has said that he will support the ruling. More explicitly, he said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman but he doesn't want to force his belief on others. So it seems that all 3 branches of the state government are more or less in agreement. Murray 15:37, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
But he's prepared to force on everybody the idea that same-sex "marriages" are okay? Yeah, that makes sense. Philip J. Rayment 23:32, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm fairly sure that you will still be able to protest and lobby against same-sex marriages within the state of California. Wandering 23:37, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Being in Australia, I have my doubts!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 23:49, 17 May 2008 (EDT)


Exactly what is the criteria for determining that a Worldnetdaily headline should appear on the Conversapedia mainpage? Not that I'm in the position to put them there or remove them, but I am curious about the process. Wandering 17:16, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The process is this: top contributors here are promoted to Sysop status, and any Sysop has the power to edit the Main Page.--Aschlafly 18:29, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Main page news item

Didn't see this on the main page, but it looks like Senator Kennedy may have suffered a stroke. May our prayers be with him and his family. Jinkas 12:46, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

As much damage as he's done to this country, you'll forgive me if I don't pray too hard. BryonRichards 13:38, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
So much for "Compassionate Conservatism". --DinsdaleP 14:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I suppose when Osama Bin Laden gets killed you'll want me to pray for his family too. BryonRichards 14:35, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes, they're in the same league all rig- oh, never mind. --DinsdaleP 14:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

While I don't agree with his political views, he is a human being and this has to be difficult for both him and his family. Yes, I know there are many unnamed humans who suffer health problems every day, and I would pray for them all by name if I could, but this is one specific case where we can pray personally for someone in need. It looks like Fox has received more information; now they say he suffered two seizures. By the way, I suggested this as a front page news item because of his position as a member of our country's leadership. By the way (x2): Matthew 5:44 --we don't have to like what he does, but we can respect his worth as a child of God. Jinkas 14:47, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Well put, and a quite-appropriate verse, Jinkas. And I hope that BryonRichards might be praying for Osama now. God loves him, and wants him to join Him in heaven. (And think what the effect on both Islam and terrorism might be if Osama became a Christian—but that's just a bonus). Philip J. Rayment 23:34, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I pray that they will change and find the true faith which will then prompt them to act to promote God rather than destroy Him. However, if they fail to do so I'll have no remorse when they're cast into the lake of fire. BryonRichards 00:36, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

The Associated Press has a follow-up story today: a malignant brain tumor. Jinkas 13:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Myanmar Tragedy

Suggested new story: Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has written to British Prime Minister Brown, President Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, calling on the UN Security Council to authorize aid drops over the objections of the generals, stating that the regime had "effectively declared war on its own population and is committing crimes against humanity." [[14]]--DinsdaleP 14:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. So did Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter. Do you think everytime they write a letter it is also newsworthy?--Aschlafly 14:25, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
What I thought was newsworthy is that the Myanmar Junta is treating their people inhumanely, and there's a growing call for the international community to sidestep them and do what's right to help prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If my mentioning Tutu's letter is somehow objectionable, then leave it out. I'd just think that a genuine humanitarian crisis and moral confrontation, with thousands of lives in the balance, is at least as newsworthy as the number of pageviews Conservapedia's gotten lately. --DinsdaleP 14:34, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

"Want to counter the targeting of young people by atheist websites" redundancy

Regarding the current "Featured Article of the Decade Year" box, I think that it should be more clear that we want to counter the targeting of young people by atheist websites. Right now, the fact that we want to counter the targeting of young people by atheist websites is only mentioned twice in the last two sentences. We should mention the fact that we want to counter the targeting of young people by atheist websites more often! (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist the burst of parody/humor there. Could somebody take care of the redundancy, please? It looks odd.) --JBrown 15:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that in taking care of it, I've taken care of it. So thanks, and thanks again. Philip J. Rayment 00:00, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Top 10 Skeletons?

Seems a bit alarmist. Also, in regards to the Iran affair do some conservatives forget the rights support of Hussein? Rumsfeld shook his hand and the Bush admin has an open relationship with S.Arabia and thats where the majority of the 9-11 terroists came from. There is bad history on both sides, not just the left. AdenJ 06:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Conservapedia is even dumber than I thought. It says "Jonestown Kool-Aid" as one of the top ten skeletons. In fact, Kool-Aid was NOT used in the Jonestown massacre, and the massacre has nothing to do with liberals. In fact, Jim Jones was a radical conservative.--Pineapple10 11:49, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

First, user Pineapple10, you did not even read two well-researched books on the subject published within three years of the event: White Night and Raven. Second, you didn't even bother going to YouTube and typing in "Jonestown"; the original 1978 NBC News reports of the incident are posted for all to see. Third, if you had, then you wouldn't be sitting at your keyboard spouting the "non-use" of Kool-Aid at Jonestown on November 18, 1878, when in fact it was. By not even doing simple research which would have required you to go to a library and open up one of those two book, it is you, and not us, who is even dumber than I thought. Karajou 20:27, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't go to youtube or read those books. But I did go to CP's article on Jim Jones, linked from the front page, which says it wasn't Kool Aid. And it was 1978. Murray 23:21, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Do those books address the assertion that the drink mix was not Kool Aid but in fact Flavor-aid, a cheap knockoff? Wandering 00:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
The reference to Flavor-aid in our article is simply wrong, and it's going to be changed, even though that people by habit will call such instant sugary fruit drinks for kids "Kool-aid" regardless of the actual name of the brand. But here is what a few minutes of searching turned up:
But others who tried to escape were turned back by armed guards who ringed the central pavilion where the rite was carried out, Rhodes said. They were then forced to drink the poisoned Kool-aid and shortly after the mass killing began, Rhodes said, “it just got all out of order. Babies were screaming, children were screaming and there was mass confusion.” "Survivor: 'They Started With the Babies'; Jonestown: Bodies Bunched at the Altar", article by Charles A Krause, The Washington Post Nov 21, 1978.
The author quotes one Odell Rhodes, Jonestown survivor; what I included here was from paragraph 5 of the story. And it mentions Kool-aid as being used, which was found on the site, by the investigators and Guyanese military, just a few days after it happened. Karajou 04:08, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Posting this piece as a "News" story does not reflect well on this site. It's a collection of isolated examples pulled together to represent the actions of these extreme cases as typical of left-leaning people. It would be just as easy to pull together a list of "Top Ten Skeletons in the Right's Closet", but that would be endorsing the credibility of an opinion piece as legitimate journalism, and serve no constructive purpose. Conservapedia can be better than this - how about posting some of William F. Buckley's best pieces instead of this nonsense. --DinsdaleP 12:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Manson Family Values?! Reading those words just gave me a headache.

Nazi-Stalin pact. Okay, the article says that the Communist Party USA switched their stand, since when do they represent John Q. Liberal. (Besides, it was the Republicans back then (Lindbergh for example) who didn't want to get involved prior to Pearl Harbor.

Assassinating Presidents. Okay, Czolgosz, was an anarchist, not your typical leftist ("we" like big government). Guiteau was insane. The only assassination conspiracy's I've heard of are about Oswald, and a lot of conservatives buy into that rubbish. (John Wilkes Booth is suspiciously missing from the list... I wonder why....)

Allright, I simply don't want to waste my time arguing every detail (many of them are obscure and require a bit of research), but the burden of proof is on Frontpage. Prove that the left wants these things forgotten. ---user:DLerner--- 00:58, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't really see a problem... I thought it was assumed that the "In the News" section was kind of like Conservapedia's "blog" section. It certainly raises interesting points, and you can see that most of the articles linked to are opinion pieces, no? Feebasfactor 01:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Well it doesn't reflect well on CP when it advertised libelous hogwash. ---user:DLerner--- 07:20, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

American Logo?

What's with the American flag in the logo? I'm not saying Wikipedia itself is better, but Wikipedia at least looks encyclopedic. This is meant to be an alternative for everyone, not just Americans. Most countries don't even like America. Even if you ignore that because it's difficult to prove, does anyone think the American flag in a logo has any positive implications? It certainly doesn't bring about ideas of trust. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" under an American flag shouldn't be anywhere except satirical comics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julsilsus (talk)

Being an Aussie I'd prefer not to have the American flag there, but some of your reasons are bigoted. Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm uncomfortable with the logo for different reasons; I was raised to believe that printing anything on the flag was defacing it. I know a lot of people do it, but that still doesn't make it okay in my eyes. --Benp 19:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

"A fight typical of public school students"

My goodness, have any of you actually been to a public school?ColbyA 10:29, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I have, just graduated; Thats what it was like. John Evans (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Never saw anything like that during the duration of my (peaceful) time in public schools. Wandering 21:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I was only in public school for two years and fights were pretty common. They weren't really violent, but that was in first grade and kindergarten. I remember I behaved just as badly as everyone else.--Ṣ₮ёVeN 21:08, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I witnessed some "good" fights during my years. In my senior year, two girls fought during lunch and one received a concussion due to the other girl tackling her to the tiled floor. You could hear her head go "smack!"
Well, I didn't really witness it, I just heard the shouts and stuff because I was too busy playing Mario Kart DS--which I am rather skilled at snaking and dodging blue shells. +_+ Kektk 21:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
Wow, dodging blue shells on the Mario Kart, eh? I bet you get all the ladies. --SkreeveJ 21:29, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I have one, and she's important. -^_^- Kektk 21:56, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

BREAKING: Doctors: Ted Kennedy has brain tumor

Creating a new section since the old one may not be frequented anymore and because I think that this is quite relevant. Credit to Jinkas (whose post I copied into this section) for spotting and reporting this first:

The Associated Press has a follow-up story today: a malignant brain tumor. Jinkas 13:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll also throw in this CNN link for good measure. --JBrown 14:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much.--TerryHTalk 14:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

The news articles cited say he has a malignant glioma, not a glioblastoma. The second news article provided average prognosis for glioblastoma, but did not specify that Sen. Kennedy suffers from that. (Glioblastoma is a narrower definition than glioma, and they can't be used interchangeably.) ATang 15:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

And as an addendum to my previous point, we can't say the prognosis is less than a year (since that's for glioblastoma only). The news article stated that it could range from less than a year to five years. ATang 16:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Boston doc offers sex changes for 7-year-olds

Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids

What the he** is this world coming to? Jinxmchue 18:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

MN Democrats introduce dishonestly titled gay marriage bill

Marriage and Family Protection Act

Devil is in the details:

"Marriage and Family Protection Act"; specifying legislative findings; providing for gender neutral marriage laws; specifying instructions to the revisor of statutes

Jinxmchue 18:44, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

The Marriage and Family Protection Act as written by the Minnesota legislature doesn't sound deceptive at all. Imagine; a law with 'defense' or 'protection' in the title that actually defends marriage instead of restricting marriage and giving special rights to heterosexuals like the Defense of Marriage Acts passed by the federal government and the recently overturned California law. --Jimmy 19:45, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
When marriage has been defined by law as the union of one man and one woman, how does destroying that definition defend and protect marriage? And at what point do you stop with arguing against "restricting marriage" and "giving special rights?" With just the homosexuals, or do you then extend legal marriage to bigamists, polygamists and people who want to marry animals? Jinxmchue 12:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
So your argument is if we let two men marry pretty soon people will start marrying squirrels. Good argument. One second I'm going to go fornicate with my bitch(dog). I'm sorry, but that is retarded. And how does extending the same rights equate to giving special privileges? Rellik 13:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Since when is marriage a right? Jinxmchue 14:50, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
You're joking, right? Any heterosexual couples in this country can get married as long as they don't violate any of the few restrictions placed upon them. Things like age limits, parental consent, blood relations, etc. They have this right because it was given to them by the state in which they live. Except for a very small percentage of the population, homosexual couples cannot marry each other. In other words, they do not enjoy the same rights as their straight counterparts. Your slippery slope argument against such relationships is far from valid. I could equally apply your reasoning to heterosexual marriage and suggest they shouldn't have this right because the gays may want to get married also. Giving gays the right to marry won't destroy anyone's marriage or the institution of marriage as it stands now. If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, then please present it. --Jimmy 19:45, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Rights are not given to people by the government Marriage is defined differently all over the world. In some places, adults can marry children. In other places, gays can marry. If the government is deciding who can and cannot marry, it is not a right. And since the government is of and by the people, what the people want or do not want goes. The people of California overwhelmingly did not want gay marriage legalized. An oligarchy of judges decided otherwise.
As far as my so-called "slippery slope," the slope slipped into cold, hard reality on September 23, 2005, in the Netherlands when the first three-person "civil union" was legally recognized. Gays started out wanting and getting civil unions before they moved on to wanting marriages. The same will happen with polygamists if gays are allowed to marry. They, too, will demand equal "rights."
Finally, if you don't think people will be marrying animals, think again because it's already starting to happen. Case in point: British Millionaire Marries Dolphin. It's hard to use the "slippery slope" argument when reality proves otherwise. Jinxmchue 22:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
The government has occasionally taken positions that were not with the majority of the population because it is the right thing to do (or at least, that is what the government believes). If we were to poll on the Iraq war today, the government of and by the people would leave Iraq. The ruling in the California case was based on a 1948 ruling that struck down an anti-miscegenation law, which had stated: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void." At the time, that was also unpopular, though today I doubt anyone here would say that the government did the wrong thing. And so, sometimes judges take unpopular stances. And judges are the branch of government that are not "of and by the people" - they are not elected, they are appointed to 12 year terms. This is one of the points of wisdom with the founding fathers - to remove justices from political infighting and do the job of interpreting the constitution of the nation or in this case, the state. I will also point out that only one of the 7 judges was appointed by a democrat. --Rutm 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
In America, 'rights', constitutional or otherwise, are determined by the laws of the land. You also seem to misunderstand the concept that a law can be unconstitutional even if a vast majority of the electorate voted in favor of it. The judges in California decided the law banning gay marriages did not pass constitutional muster, therefore it does not matter what percentage of the population supported it. Since you seem to like your slippery slope argument, would you be willing to argue that heterosexuals should give up the right to marry since the homosexuals may want to have the same right? As far as the marriage rights of other countries are concerned, we are just talking about America, or so I thought. --Jimmy 20:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Boy, do you need to bone up on what "inalienable rights" means! Legally recognized marriage is not a right because it is determined by laws. Laws can neither grant nor rescind rights. Jinxmchue 12:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Bill titles are often worded in a positive light, because one of its functions is to "sell" the bill. Just look at the USA PATRIOT Act. If you expanded that fully, it becomes "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", which is so forced and ineloquent it is clearly a backronym - the words were chosen to spell "patriot". And the reason for having the word "patriot" in the title? It's a positive word.

It's just marketing. ATang 13:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

The measure had no chance of going into law in the 2008 session, anyway, since they introduced the bill last Friday and the Legislature just concluded the 2008 session on Sunday. They had no possibility to get any substantive debate on the bill -- and if they had, I'm sure the public would have started howling in protest. (Well, everyone except the citizens in the Loring Park area of Minneapolis, anyway.) And, even in the unlikely event that the House and the Senate had reached agreement on the bill, and it had gone to Governor Pawlenty for his signature, he would most likely have vetoed it. --Elkman 14:57, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia-Sponsored Immigration Debate?

What's the status of the public debate on immigration Conservapedia was going to sponsor in May? It was mentioned in the main page News section on April 18th, but I haven't seen any updates since then. --DinsdaleP 20:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

We participated in other events that supplanted it. Instead, we'll have an event June 5th in northern New Jersey. Can you make it?--Aschlafly 21:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I can't make the Conservapedia dinner event because of scheduling priorities I have on Thursday evenings, but I look forward to attending other metro-NY area events as they come up. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 09:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting global warming

Isn't that tagline a little misleading? The petition itself rejects "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate", so the petition isn't against the AGW theory per se, it's against the more extreme claims of the AGW crowd. And yet, when it's presented (not just on CP; most other places that cite the petition do this, too), it's presented as if the signatories reject anthropogenic global warming outright.

The "31,000" figure is a bit misleading, too. This petition was first circulated about ten years ago, and most of the signatories signed then or within a few years of that time. The science of climate change has come a ways since then. According to a study by Scientific American (from 2005, I think), about a third of the people that signed it then would not sign it today. It's still a fairly good piece of evidence against the consensus argument, but it's not quite as strong as people make it out to be.--Frey 16:47, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not misleading, unless you don't know what "global warming" means in this context, i.e., the anthropogenic global warming theory which states that fossil fuels and so forth are heating up the earth's atmosphere too much.
Also, if you bothered to study (or even skim) the new paper on Art Robinson's website you'll see that the petition refutes that so-called inconvenient facts of Al Gore and his ilk, with real science. The OISM view is that natural causes dwarf all of man's influence on average earth temperature. [15]
There are disputes about whether the figure is accurate, but Scientific American? They are so biased that they threatened to sue Bjorn Lomborg for quoting them in his refutation of their biased review of his book, The Sceptical Environmentalist. --Ed Poor Talk 18:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
I do know what the petition said, it said "catastrophic heating". I also know what the AGW theory is, it's the theory (or hypothesis if you prefer) that human-caused factors, mainly release of carbon dioxide, are currently effecting the climate by raising the overall temperature, and that these human factors are stronger than any natural factors of change currently in operation. The petition, as it's worded, doesn't contradict that at all. More narrowly defined, the theory says that the overall effects of this climate change will be negative to overall human welfare, but how negative is still a matter of debate among the AGW crowd. All the petition says is that any effects wouldn't be horrible, and that the beneficial effects of additional CO2 will make up for them, in whole or in part. I have seen Al Robinson's paper, but talking about it would be going off on a sidetrack. My point is what the petition says. Heck, as it's written, even I agree with it.
Scientific American probably is somewhat biased, and the study could definitely have been more comprehensive (their sample size was thirty climate scientists out of 1400 who signed the petition), but if you want to claim bias on this particular study, the burden of proof is on you.--Frey 21:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

4 Million Californians

Bjorn Lomborg rocks! But anyways, I was just thinking... it seems like saying that 4 million Californians voted for something would kind of go against it instead of for it, seeing as California has well over 30 million people and I'm sure their electorate is way more than twice that four million number. Wouldn't that indicate that supporters of a ban on gay marriage are in the minority? Just wondering if it would be better to say a percentage of votes or something to make it sound better. Rockthecasbah 21:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Probably considering how liberal California is, those against gay marriage is most likely a minority. I still don't understand the insecurity of neoconservatives who oppose gay marriage. The marriage of a gay couple won't affect anyone else's marriage, so there is nothing to "defend". But I doubt Conservapedia would want to be neutral in saying the percentage. After all, it is Conservapedia. Kilmarnock 22:13, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, proposition 22, which prohibited gay marriage in California, passed with over 60% of the vote. [16]. Only ~1 in 5 Californians actually voted on the proposition however, so those against gay marriage could still be a minority, just a majority of the voters. BlinkadyblinkRAGE 22:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I was referring to the amount of people who may have supported it today. I am already aware that most voters were against it in 2000. Kilmarnock 11:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Little Green (or Red) Numbers

Something I've been wondering for a while: whenever I make an edit, what do the little green or red numbers on my watchlist mean? Stuff like:

   * (diff) (hist) . . Yes Minister‎; 10:08 . . (+1,284) . . KarlJaeger (Talk | contribs)

Many thanks,

KarlJaeger 10:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

It's a quick info bit that shows how many characters you add or remove with that edit. Red is removing, green is adding, grey is no-change. --JBrown 10:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh right. Cheers. KarlJaeger 10:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Breaking News in Charleston...Worthy of Front Page?

A woman in Charleston by the name of Val Thomas has made a remarkable recovery after being "dead" for a considerable period of time--and after the family reached the decision to take her off of life support because there was supposedly no hope.

It seems to me as if this is the sort of story that needs to be emphasized in the wake of the Terry Schiavo case. When the doctors involved in the case are outright calling it a "miracle"...well, that's news, in my book!

--Benp 19:29, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

It was truly a wonderful event for her family, and I wish them all the best. This is not at all comparable to Terri Schiavo case, however. The key distinction in this story is that faced with her deteriorating condition the family, in conjunction with their minister, chose to put her fate in God's hands instead of forcibly maintaining her life though artificial means. The medical condition and means of support were different, but one could argue that in the Schiavo case, her fate was put in God's hands and if she was meant to live she would have recovered as well. You can be a loving person of faith by choosing to prolong life artificially and give recovery a chance, and like this family, you can be a loving person of faith by choosing to let destiny run it's course if you believe you've done everything possible up to that point. I've had to make this choice about a loved one, too, and if people think it's easy to make that decision, all I can say is that I hope you never have to find out. --DinsdaleP 20:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a sentiment with which I can wholeheartedly agree; you have my sympathies for having had to go through that. --Benp 20:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
DinsdaleP, Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death; she was deprived of water until she inevitably died. People were arrested for trying to bring her water.--Aschlafly 20:54, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
As I said, these are different cases, and there is definitely a difference between someone who has fading vital signs and someone who can maintain their vital signs if artificially supplied with water and nutrition. Withdrawing artificial support is also different than euthanasia. What is clear is that Ms. Schiavo would have died naturally if this had happened prior to the development of feeding-tube nutrition and technology that maintained her life through outside intervention. Is it so inconceivable to think that a different minister could have counseled Ms. Schiavo's parents that after years of existing in a vegetative state with no improvement, it would be no sin to put her fate in God's hands? There's a line between doing everything reasonably possible to respect and maintain life, and realizing that your efforts are prolonging a state of living that was not meant to be, but it's not an easy line to define and I don't judge people faced with doing just that. --DinsdaleP 21:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Also, for the sake of accuracy, the woman has not recovered completely and her doctor was quoted as saying she's not out of the woods yet. Best wishes for her fast recovery. --DinsdaleP 21:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Sticking to my habit of being picky about details - the article did not say that the woman was pronounced dead, so it's inaccurate to state that on the front page. "Doctors said she had no pulse, no blood pressure, no brain frequency, Tim said." was the quote I found in the article. An observation about pulse, pressure and brain waves is different from a MD pronouncing a patient dead (which involves a death certificate indicating time of death, etc., right?). I also second the point that she's 'expected' to make a full recovery, and has not "completely recovered".

I don't think a comparison could be drawn between this case and the Schiavo case at all. An excerpt from the article: "Her skin had already started hardening, her hands and toes were curling up, they were already drawn," he said. "There was no life there."

It seems like he's describing a decerebrate posture, which is indicative of severe brain damage. (Mind you, this is an amateur analysis - for I have no formal training in medicine - from an amateur observation - I don't think her son, Tim, has medical training either.) Nevertheless, this, combined with the lack of pulse, blood pressure and brain waves, makes it markedly different from the Schiavo case - where the decision to remove life support was made when Schiavo wasn't on a ventilator.

ATang 11:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

McCain untruths

Yesterday you added a front page article from Fox news about Clinton's lies/half truths. Tomorrow I am sure you'll put Obama's on the front page. Today John McCain features. Why have you not linked the story to the front page? It seems like a valid article. AdenJ 01:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Dumbest kids?

Re: Tennessee rejecting home-schooled applicants for state jobs. Is it polite to call kids dumb just because they went to school? These aren't statistics we're talking about, but actual kids. Would you go to a graduating senior and tell them 'You're one of the dumbest kids in the state'? If a kid comes from a family where both parents work full time, home schooling may not be an option. And political debates aside, I feel it's rude to call teenagers 'dumb' for graduating high school. Though I know the main page is quoting an article title, surely there's a more polite way to refer to these teens? CraigC 08:20, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

The more polite way to refer to these teens was NEVER to have crafted that legislation in the first place. This was done by the state legislature of Tennessee, which means it was crafted by the Democratic Party (and they're in charge of the state legislature) at the behest of the state Board of Education (controlled and run by Democrats)...which means that if you are Democrat in this state, then you voted for it. There's just no way anyone get get around that one small fact. Karajou 13:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to take exception with the way this news piece was presented as well, which was sad because there's an important issue underlying it. The state was trying to ensure that there was a consistent baseline of education set for applicants, and since the curriculum of homeschooled students is not regulated (a stated advantage of homeschooling), there was no way to assure that they met the standard baseline.
The solution chosen by the state was wrong - instead of excluding homeschooled students from applying, the simple solution is to provide an entrance exam that measures the relevant skills for the job (math, reading, etc.), and to require every applicant to take it. The author made a good point in showing that the public schools in that state base graduation on credits versus grades, so a graduate with a "D" average is considered as acceptable a graduate as one with an "A" average for hiring purposes. Basing the qualification for entrance on merit using the same job-related test for everyone is the common sense solution that should be adopted.
When Conservapedia stereotypes students educated in public schools as being dumb because of the pro-homeschooling bias here, it's an insult to every public school student who works hard and gets a good education, and insults their committed parents and teachers as well. The story in the link made some good points about bad policy and the need for merit-based standards that are actually merit-based - can we just stick to the content that matters and drop the insulting rhetoric? --DinsdaleP 09:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
On this point, I absolutely agree. Now, to be fair, the appellation of "dumbest" wasn't selected by Conservapedia, but by the author of the original article. Nonetheless, I think it's irresponsible to repeat it.
I'll freely put my cards on the table: I am a public school teacher. I love what I do, and I can't imagine a more rewarding profession. I support home schooling as a fine option for some students, and I wish that I could give every student the same level of individualized, one-on-one attention available to homeschooled students.
That being said, I also know that homeschooling isn't the best approach for every student. For some, it's not an option at all. Some families simply cannot afford to have a parent stay home full-time. Others lack one or both parents, and that's not always the result of a broken home. I have an absolutely brilliant student this year who sadly lost her mother to cancer a few months back, just as an example. This young lady--and she IS a young lady, in the best possible sense of the word--has managed to maintain a perfect average in my class despite personal tragedy. She writes award-winning poetry, and is on track to have her first piece professionally published.
When I have been blessed with students of that caliber, I absolutely and categorically reject any blanket generalization denigrating public school students.
Is it true that public schools have lower average test scores than private schools or homeschooled students? Perhaps. Certainly, it's true in some cases. That's only to be expected, though; after all, public schools don't have the option of being selective about their students.
As an example: our district is known for an excellent special-education program. Naturally, this attracts parents who have students with special needs. These are not simply students who are reading below grade level; these are students with Down Syndrome, severe autism, and significant cognitive impairment.
I know these kids. I like these kids. I read to them during my free periods. They're great kids, and they have a lot going for them. They're learning skills they can actually master, and that will allow them to lead a productive life. They are never, however, going to pass a standardized achievement test.
The net result insofar as the test is concerned? Lower overall test scores...which only goes to show that the overall test scores don't tell the whole story.
Hopefully, being honest about being a public school teacher isn't going to forever condemn me in the eyes of those participating. There have been times when I've been accused of being everything from an atheist to a Communist to a pedophile to (in one memorable case) a Satanist--simply on the basis of revealing that I teach at a public school.
That's sad, because I shouldn't be the enemy. What I care about is doing the best job I can possibly do for them. Shouldn't that put me on the same side as those who want to homeschool their students?
God Bless,
--Benp 11:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
As a product of the public school system myself, I vehemently object to being called "dumbest" - not just "dumb", but "dumbest". The comparisons made on this site on test scores between homeschooled and public school students have a serious sampling bias hinted above by Benp: public schools accept students of all socio-economical classes, while home-schooling is the choice usually preferred by parents who can afford to stay at home - meaning financial situation isn't a big concern for that household.
ATang 12:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Some textbook examples of Liberal denial here! Bugler 13:48, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
And there's the term you love to throw around. Great talk, I enjoyed our intellectual debate. ATang 13:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Upon further reflect, I refuse to stoop to your level and now I'd provide a rational rebuttal.

I believe you're referring to "10. ...homeschoolers often do better than those who attend public school" in liberal denial. If you've read my comment carefully, you'd have found that I never denied that they do better. I was arguing the 'reason' they do better, and how comparing relative successes of these two systems does not reflect their respective ability to train "good" students, because of a sampling bias.

Here's an analogy - consider two bakers who make apple pies. One of them gets their apple from a supplier who carefully screens his apples. The other baker gets their apple from a supplier who doesn't screen his apple. If one studies the quality of the resultant apple pies between the two cooks, one would find marked differences in quality and taste - because one of them receives only good quality apples, while the other gets a mixed of good and bad apples. However, this study is incapable of reflecting the ability of the bakers, their cooking techniques, or recipe used. Even if both of them use the same recipe, same oven, etc., we'll still have the difference in quality.

What I'm trying to say (and what's stated in previous comments already) is that public schools cannot screen their students. Looking at relative successes of homeschoolers and public school students is not a good reflection of the respective school systems because of an uneven population distribution (hence _sample_ bias).

ATang 14:07, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO ABOVE: For starters, I've personally taught 145 teenagers (many who are former public schoolers) and have, in the past, organized and run an educational club in a public school. I would not personally call public school students "dumber" or "dumbest", but they plainly do score lower on standardized tests than homeschoolers so the label is not objectively incorrect. I would observe that public school students are more depressed, violent, disturbed, atheistic, anxiety-ridden, and unproductive than homeschool students. The bigger problem is the ideology imposed on public school victims, and it is unmistakable. I've gotten to where I can spot a public school student simply by how he dresses, talks, stands and his facial demeanor. Ideas do matter, and it's folly to think that spending most of one's time in a certain (atheistic) culture is not going to have consequences.--Aschlafly 13:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO ATANG: The superior performance of homeschoolers on tests is not attributable solely to selection bias. Homeschoolers, by and large, are actually relatively poorer than most public school students, and come from demographics that generally do not do well on tests. Again, it's folly to think that the public school ideology and culture do not have an effect.--Aschlafly 14:18, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to see some data on that. What are the most common demographics that are homeschooled? (I actually don't know too much about this and I'd like to know more. I was under the impression that homeschooling means at least one of the parents stay home and teach.)
Of course I'm not saying that public schools have no impact, but I'm arguing that there are simply way too many variables to take into account here, especially since we're comparing such vastly different systems with multiple, interconnected independent variables. In these cases I'm reluctant to lay blame on any one factor (and as in everything else in life, it's usually a myriad of factors that cause a single problem).
Are there any studies between, say, Catholic schools and public schools? Because this would single out the atheistic aspect of what we're talking about and allows for more controlled variables (e.g. they're both in class-teaching environments, as opposed to comparing homeschooling and public schools).ATang 14:29, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
What's gotten lost in this round of the usual "why homeschooling is so much better than public schools" rhetoric is the point I made above that BenP echoed as well. The labeling of public school students as "dumber" came from within the article, and the only reason it was carried into the CP News headline the way it was is that the sysop posting the entry made a conscious decision to do so. Let me ask a direct question then - will any sysop agree that calling public school students dumb in this manner is an unfair stereotype that insults good, hardworking students and teachers just because they're not homeschooled, and edit the news item accordingly? --DinsdaleP 14:31, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
DinsdaleP, the headline is provocative in a way that good headlines are. Public school students do score worse on exams than homeschoolers. The context of the headline is an offensive, irrational, liberal law that requires taking only from the group that scores worse. The "dumbest" label applies to a group, and it is correct on that basis and need not be changed.--Aschlafly 14:40, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
In response to my own post above:
A quick, preliminary search gives this article:
And it shows that "Catholic high-school students learn more than public-school students of similar backgrounds and ability levels. It was also found that Catholic schooling lowers high-school dropout rates." Interesting....
In a related article, it was shown that Catholic schools spend less per student than public schools:
Bureaucratic inefficiency?
I think Aschlafly stated above that the label was not objectively incorrect. (So probably won't be changed)
ATang 14:37, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Catholic schools may be better than public schools, but Catholic schools are being attended by fewer and fewer students. Those schools are not what we're debating right now.--Aschlafly 14:40, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Just trying to draw my own conclusion regarding school systems by isolating variables that exist between public schools and homeschooling, and determining which is actually responsible for "dumb" public school students. No matter, just thought I'd share. Cheers, ATang 14:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to beg to differ, Mr. Schlafly; my experience is quite different. Having worked with both home schooled students and (obviously) public school students, it's been my experience that there's nowhere near as much of a difference as you maintain. Please note that I do not say "no difference." I would say that overall the homeschooled students are slightly more respectful, but it's a relatively small difference. I've encountered homeschooled students who ran roughshod over their parents, as well as public school students who quite clearly have parents willing to teach them excellent manners. The most openly upbeat, spiritual students I've worked with have, in fact, been in my public school classroom.
Now: I'm willing to acknowledge (as I did previously) that not all public schools are the same. I work in a suburban school that, frankly, flouts public school stereotypes. We have a gun club; we have a prayer circle around the flagpole as a regular event. Elected officials do, in fact, send their children to our school. My experience is clearly going to be different from someone who teaches in an inner city school.
I don't deny that there are problems with the public school system. I simply see detractors as being very similar to the detractors of the War in Iraq: so set on the notion that it's a bad thing that they refuse to acknowledge the good that's being accomplished.
God Bless,
--Benp 16:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
A gun club in a public school is very, very unusual today. It's also very unusual for a public school teacher to sign his name with a "God Bless." And while I'm at it, men are only a small percentage of public school teachers. "Spiritual" students in your public school classroom??? Your story is starting to look like scam, to be honest.
But even if this unlikely story were true, it certainly is not representative of public school in general. Rather, this is like the tobacco industry bragging about a 100-year-old smoker. Such people exist, but there are 100 times as many who were destroyed by the experience. The same could be said about your story of public school compared to the reality.--Aschlafly 17:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry you think so. Suspicion and cynicism aren't healthy, in my experience; I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until such time as they demonstrate themselves unworthy. If you'd like a link to information on our rifle club, for instance, that's easily provided. Nor is the percentage of male teachers in public schools as low as you seem to think.
It's particularly disappointing that a simple "God Bless" can be taken as evidence of dishonesty. If an expression of faith by a public school teacher is met by scorn and suspicion, not from atheists, but from people of it really surprising that public school teachers don't express their faith more often?
Perhaps you're correct, and our school is simply unusual. Certainly, I consider myself blessed to be there. At the same time, though, I prefer to be more optimistic than that. I believe that there are many schools of the same sort across the country, and that they're simply ignored in the media's never-ending quest for bad news and pessimism. A prayer circle around the flagpole to which nobody objects isn't news; a prayer circle around the flagpole that provokes lawsuits by atheists is. A rifle club that teaches students to safely and responsibly use firearms isn't news, but the second one of those students gets injured, you can bet the news crews would be on hand.
The pity is that there are public school teachers who are trying to teach students some of the simple truths of life: honesty matters, integrity matters, there is such a thing as right and wrong, and when you do wrong, there are consequences. There are public school teachers who believe that we're hired to do a job--teaching students as well as possible--and that whatever is required to accomplish that job is part of our job description. There are even those of us who don't believe in tenure; as I see it, if I do an incompetent job, I should be fired regardless of how long I've been around.
It can be a very lonely position to be in. It becomes even more lonely when, no matter how passionately a teacher holds those beliefs, he is assumed to be lying by those with similar beliefs, simply because he teaches at a public school.
How can public schools be made less liberal if the conservatives there are given no support?
In any case, I hope you'll accept the "God Bless," at least, as sincere; they're two words that aren't said enough, and in my opinion, should never be discouraged.
God Bless,
--Benp 18:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

REPLY TO ASchlafly - You have an interesting attitude towards the use of the word of "dumbest", then, in that you feel it's appropriate to label a group of students who score below a different group the "dumbest" of the two. When you address your homeschool students in a group, do you refer to the ones who scored lower on a given test than the others as the "dumb" ones in the class? Maybe you consider that headline good in a provocative way, but that shows an intention to be provocative as opposed to informative. There were good points in that article and it was important to publish it, but your choice to reprint an insult for the sake of being "provocative" says a lot about your character. A few weeks ago, you stated that the selective use of mockery is appropriate when commenting on liberal values and individuals like Barack Obama. In this case, the targets you've chosen to mock are students and teachers who happen to be in the public school system; you must be quite proud of yourself.--DinsdaleP 16:16, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks like you couldn't resist, DinsdaleP, with invoking a form of liberal style point #37: "shame on you!" "You must be quite proud of yourself," you say. And how often do you say that about the liberals whom you support?? Oh how liberals love to say that conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. The headline is accurate and you protesteth too much, DinsdaleP.--Aschlafly 17:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
And it looks like you prefer to change the topic and accuse me of liberal bias instead of addressing my comments directly. I have no problem criticizing anyone, including liberals or myself, when the behavior warrants it. I'm not attacking you personally, either; I'm pointing out that your decision to mock schoolchildren as dumb because they happen to be in public schools is a reflection of your character. You've just affirmed your view that this instance of mockery is proper and the headline is accurate, so there's no other comment to make.
Also, the article has beens removed from the headlines by one of the sysops because he considered it a misquote by the person who originally posted it, so I guess you should correct his bad judgment and replace the news link. --DinsdaleP 17:54, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Andy, why don't you just block him under the 90/10 rule instead of trying to debate him? After all, that's what 90/10 is there for: to be used in a discretionary manner to end debates when there's no other option. --Elkman 18:21, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Youtube and Terrorist Videos

The blog Techdirt had a thoughtful commentary on why Senator Lieberman is naive about removing these videos from Youtube, and how that policy would actually hurt US security if it were fully applied.[17] The social reason for letting them stay are that it exposes the hatefulness of what these groups believe for what it is, and allows rational people to repudiate them in public. More importantly, from a security perspective it's much better to have these videos posted where they can be tracked and monitored, instead of driving them underground (as if there were no alternatives to Youtube). We're much more likely to gain from following the trail behind these postings to an inevitable mistake that reveals leaders in hiding than we are to lose from poorly made propaganda being mocked on Youtube. Lieberman knows this, and is putting lame gestures for votes ahead of sound counter-intelligence strategy. --DinsdaleP 10:54, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Techdirt used the word "got" in the commentary on Lieberman. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 12:59, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Point being?--Iconoclastbeggar 13:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

our Atheism article

Atheism is the 5th search result on google for atheism (a huge jump), and the 4th for yahoo -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

There are 1008 links to our Atheism article see -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)