Talk:Main Page/archive58

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

when was conservapedia started?


It was started by a homeschool group in December of 2006. Why? ~BCSTalk2ME 15:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

It was started in 2006 but began to take off more in 2007 from news/blog coverage and word of mouth. DanH 15:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)


"Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and gender."

Thats ludicrous. What aspects of Karl Marxs political philosophy do they possess? Making the Democratic party the vanguard of revolution? Nationalising all private property? Do you people think before you type? JEdgar 19:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, first of all that was originally from the article itself, not typed by us. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 21:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
Did you even bother to read the article that was linked to? Jinxmchue 21:53, 23 May 2008 (EDT

Sort of Contradictory

I feel that someone needs to point this out. With respect to the headline on Kennedy, the first article talks about how conservatives always respect someone after their death (praying for them etc) and about how liberals do the opposite (wishing the deceased was burning in hell etc). The second article is a list of criticisms about Kennedy. Although it's not exactly on the same level as the sick messages discussed in the first article, it is still in the same key (slamming someone when they are gravely ill is not exactly saying “I disagree with Senator Kennedy's politics, but he is a fellow American and a fellow human being so I sincerely pray for his recovery and wish his family well.”). Perhaps someone could look at changing one of these two links, preferably the second. StatsMsn 09:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I would tend to agree. This seems in very bad taste. By all means criticize Kennedy and other old-school liberals as issues arise. Including this here in this context just makes us look mean spirited and bitter. Ezekiel38 02:33, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Wow, "Ezekiel38", you feel compelled to speak for "us"? Your above comment is your only edit here!--Aschlafly 14:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry I didn't mean any offense. I just signed on to make that comment. But I will add more constrictive comments soon. I meant "us" in the sense of eth Conservative community. Sorry if I gave the wrong impresion. Ezekiel38 19:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia video on YouTube

View it and rate it here:

Read, rate and respond to comments (lots of hateful comments from liberals, of course) here:

Just thought you'd like to know. Jinxmchue 12:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the video Jinxmchue. It has been posted on the Main Page. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 12:21, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
The liberal venom posted on the Youtube comment page is hilarious. Notice how liberals never police or even criticize the overt hatred expressed by fellow liberals.--Aschlafly 12:45, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
They hate homeschooling, that's for sure. Even though several studies have shown that homeschoolers constantly outperform their publicly schooled counterparts, many liberals continue to spread the lie that homeschoolers are ignorant, uneducated, backwards and "unprepared for reality." Jinxmchue 14:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
In regards to Youtube, there really is no "policing", and criticism generally occurs between people who disagree, not agree. Also, why are you linking to the article within the talk page? Wandering 19:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
My point is that liberals almost never criticize or police fellow liberals, no matter how hateful their venom is.--Aschlafly 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a rather ridiculous generalization, and completely ignores the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with supporters of each side constantly criticizing the other. Or have you not been following that at all? Wandering 14:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Liberals are humans, just as conservatives. They're both just as much likely to be "venomous" and "hateful" which by no means exemplifies either political ideologies. Kilmarnock 00:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! I'm a liberal and I've found a lot of this site to just be mean! I appreciate your fairness!
Ideas have consequences, and it's folly to pretend otherwise. There is no way that one value system is going to "just as much likely to be venomous and hateful" as a completely different value system. Would you say that people who eat fast food every day are just as likely to be healthy as those who do not? Surely not.--Aschlafly 13:35, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say the ideology, I said those that advocate the ideology. So both sets of advocates (liberals and conservatives) are just as likely to be "venomous". Nor do the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism give any such consequences to those who support those ideologies. However, I wouldn't say that people who eat fast food every day are just as likely to be healthy as those who don't; that is an irrelevant point. The "fast food" point is based on science while the "ideology" point is based on opinion. Liberals are just as likely to be "venomous" as conservatives. Kilmarnock 14:01, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
You're just repeating your sweeping claim, without giving a reason. Why would you expect two groups having completely different value systems to be precisely identical in their style? Would you expect, for example, people who go to church every week to use profanity as often as people who do not? Of course not.--Aschlafly 14:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
You're just repeating your unsubstantiated statement that liberals never criticise liberals who are "venomous" while you're not even addressing how conservatives can be any different. Why would you expect liberals to be any more "venomous" than conservatives? Would you expect, for example, people who practise tai chi chuan every week to be hateful as often as people who don't? Of course not. Kilmarnock 18:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
You're simply mimicking my points without answering them, and I'm not going to continue to allow you to post non-substantive comments here. The postings by liberal critics of Conservapedia on the YouTube video are venomous. No one denies that, yet you won't admit it. You won't find postings by conservatives in that hateful style. Moreover, it's silly to pretend that liberals and conservatives, or any two groups that hold such widely different values, would be identical in style. So address these points, or move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
How do you tell whether a Youtube commenter is a liberal or a conservative? At face value, the difference would apparently be whether they agree with you or not. Wandering 20:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Wandering, true to your name, your comment that you can't tell if the Youtube commenters are liberal or conservative is simply absurd. There are limits to how many absurd comments you will be able to make on this site. I trust you can understand the meaning of my last sentence without further explanation, and if you post a comment saying you do not understand then that will likely be your last edit here. Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 20:59, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, you're continuously dodging my question. How do you substantiate that liberals almost never criticize or police fellow liberals, no matter how hateful their "venom" is as opposed to conservatives? Do you think that a conservative can't be "venomous" like a liberal? Like Rush Limbaugh's hateful rhetoric about Michael J. Fox? Like Pat Robertson saying that Satanism and homosexuality came together in helping the rise in Adolf Hitler? Like Jerry Falwell blaming homosexuals for helping the events of 9/11? Like Charles Coughlin's hateful anti-Semitic preachings? Like Sean Hannity's francophobic comments stating that "not since 1972 has the Democratic Party moved so far to the French"? Like Ann Coulter's vicious hate speech calling Muslims "rag heads"? You don't seem to want to admit to this. Why won't you address the question? And in the words of Wandering, how do you tell whether or not a YouTube user is liberal or conservative? There are plenty of conservatives who oppose the ideologies presented in Conservapedia, Mr Schlafly. Kilmarnock 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
To avoid yourself taking people's words out of context, Kilmarnock, I'm going to insist as well as demand that you provide the actual transcripts of what you claim these people have said. Not one or two sentences, but the whole thing. Karajou 01:50, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Kilmarnock said it first but I believe that conservatives and liberals both say venonous things so I have made the list (but neither side should as its counter-productive). Both sides have vitrol to yell at each other but none should, lets focus on issues not cheap shots. Please dont block me, I am just looking for equal fairness on this particulary issue. I dont think asking for actual transcripts is fair as many Conservapedia articles link to blogs and asking for actual transcripts is, in my humble opinion, a dodge of the issue. These comments are pretty well known anyway.

AdenJ 05:59, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I found the video of Sean Hannity's francophobic comments on YouTube[1] (the comments are at 1:26 in the video). Thanks to AdenJ for providing the rest of the information. Kilmarnock 13:57, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Folks, give us actual quotes of what you think is venom by conservatives, and then compare those to quotes of what you see on the YouTube commentary about conservatives. You're just kidding yourself if you think they are comparable.--Aschlafly 15:07, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Well there are not comparable because - for example - Limbaughs radio shows reaches millions whereas someone on youtube is just a lone internet voice. The Limbaugh clip has his comments and then is apology meaning he knew what he was saying was inflammatory. AdenJ 16:19, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

"When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." -Charles Coughlin
"This is really shameless. Either he didn't take his medication, or he's acting." -Rush Limbaugh
"Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." -Pat Robertson
"I really believe that the pagans and the feminists and the abortionists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who tried to secularise America, I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'." -Jerry Falwell
"Not since 1972 has the Democratic Party moved so far to the French." -Sean Hannity
“Rag-head talks tough, rag-head faces consequences.” -Ann Coulter
No, Mr Schlafly, we are not kidding ourselves. Please be courteous in the discussion. Those YouTube comments aren't aimed at conservatives, they are aimed at Conservapedia. There's no telling which of those YouTube users is a liberal or a conservative as there are conservatives that oppose the ideologies presented in Conservapedia. I would also have to agree with AdenJ. The voice of an anonymous YouTube user bears much less credibility and responsibility than someone who hosts a television programme or a radio programme. Kilmarnock 16:34, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
You don't attach dates to the comments. Coughlin was an anti-semitic commentator in the 1930s, and not a conservative. Most of the other comments are not venomous, while the YouTube comments are. Your comment that the YouTube comments "aren't aimed at conservatives, they are aimed at Conservapedia" is silly and pointless.--Aschlafly 16:44, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

My final thought on this is as stated above - there is venom spewed on both sides. The focus should be the issues and it wastes time to speak hate. The Limbaugh quote got me the most as he admitted that he actually hadnt seen M.J.Fox in any interviews before so had nothing to compare his observations too. He was just mouthing off. At least he apologised. AdenJ 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, "mouthing off" is not the same as venomous comments, like what is often seen from liberals, as on YouTube and often here. No, liberal and conservative styles are not identical. There is no reason to expect they would be. To me, that is the most unjustified claim of all: that the styles of two groups having completely different value systems would somehow be identical.--Aschlafly 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

We'll have to agree to disagree then I guess. I dont mind, I'm a moderate (I know you dont believe there are any but nonetheless - here I am!) and see both sides spitting venom at each other. Just differant types of venom. AdenJ 17:03, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Charles Coughlin was a conservative[2]. Mr Schalfly, can you please specify which of the given comments aren't venomous? Because you appear to be proving the point that conservatives almost never criticize or police fellow conservatives, no matter how hateful their venom is, as opposed to this point being applied to liberals. I would appreciate it if you directly address the arguments instead of dodging them (i.e. claiming them as being "silly and pointless") as I could have done the same for your arguments much further back in this conversation. Kilmarnock 17:37, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Kilmarnock, I said I wanted the entire transcripts of where you said these quotes came from, not blurbs taken out of them and spun about by the news media. Go get them. Karajou 02:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Karajou, you have the quotes and the references to verify them which have the rest of the text. If you think I am going to post the entire treanscripts containing the quotes from monologues or dialogues, you are mistaken. I'm sure you know that even in Conservapedia, references are not cited with the entire transcript on the page, but a quote and a reference to the quote. You have the quotes; you have the citations; they are clearly "venomous", and if you are truly unconvinced, you may very well check the references yourself. Kilmarnock 12:22, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Kilmarnock, we have rules against incessant talk, talk, talk. Take a look at your own edit pattern and check it against the rules. During your brief absence, learn about Charles Coughlin from our site rather than a liberal one, and see why he was plainly not a conservative. Hint: conservatives did not support the New Deal.--Aschlafly 19:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Andrew, that link is from the University of Madison-Wisconsin which was ranked as the eighth-best public university in the United States. Why don't you actually check the citation instead of dismissing everything that refutes your point as a "liberal"? Charles Coughlin was most definitely a conservative and if you would research the priest on the site which you unsupportedly claimed as being "liberal" merely because it refutes your point, you would know that Charles Coughlin became increasingly against the New Deal because of its slow progress. Kilmarnock 12:22, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Andy can cite specific quotes from the youtube responses he considers especially venomous, and then others can look for similar sentiments expressed by conservatives on other videos or on other sites. That way we can compare apples to apples. I seem to recall seeing some responses to articles on conservative websites which were unnecessarily hateful to liberals. If no one can come up with anything expressing a similar attitude, then Andy will have a good point, I think. Jaguar 18:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

A General Question

I have a general question. I am posting here in order to gauge opnion from you all. There is a lot on this site mocking environmentalists, saving the whales etc. Why is this? I would have thought the believing in God would make you want to protect his creation/s. AdenJ 21:35, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The problem is the tendency for environmentalists to elevate animal or plant life above the value of human life. The environment is the creation of God, but humans are in the image of God. Also, environmentalism can push falsehoods that impose unnecessary hardships, like interfering with the development of energy sources.--Aschlafly 22:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I definatly agree that environmentalists can be a pushy bunch! However I think that in protecting our environment we also protect ourselves. AdenJ 22:17, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Protecting the environment is fine. Protecting animals is fine. Hindering needed human activity based upon lies about global warming or forcing people to use supposedly environmentally-friendly products (like those compact florescent bulbs which ironically contain mercury and are hazardous if broken) is not. Jinxmchue 23:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

That is true. I personally am very skeptical of Global Warming (sure its happening but I am undecided on the human impact) but, in saying that, limiting outputs and converting to clean energy is only going to benefit us in the long run. AdenJ 00:00, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia's viewpoint expressed above is fair enough. My main problem with CP on the issue is that whenever it talks about an environmentalist group, no matter what group it is, it almost always either strongly implies or states directly that that group is an extremist group. It's true of some groups certainly, and the extremists probably have a voice in the environmental movement that is out of proportion to their numbers. But every left-of-center environmental group is "extremist"? I have a hard time believing that.--Frey 13:57, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals love free speech

Michigan homosexual lobby backs jail, lawsuits

for refusal to recognize homosexual “marriage”

Columnist: Triangle Fdn’s Kosofsky says business owners

should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”
“A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation…told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent. What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his ‘marriage discount’ only to couples married in his eyes?

Thiudareiks 06:20, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

free speech again

Thiudareiks 06:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Subway bars homeschoolers from essay contest

And the pièce de résistance is Subway's spelling of "United States." lol! Way to go, Subway. Not only do you end up looking prejudiced, but you look stupid, too. Jinxmchue 11:06, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see Subway as being against homeschooling, just that they want the grand prize to go to a school instead of a private individual so the benefits are shared. --DinsdaleP 14:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
The benefits are more likely to be "shared" with students if given to a homeschool group than if given to a union-controlled public school, so I don't think your reason holds water.--Aschlafly 14:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Are you implying that if the group-prize would be won by a public or parochial school it wouldn't be shared? You truly have a low opinion of non-homeschoolers and the institutions that serve them, don't you?
I read the rules, and if the entry was submitted from a homeschool group with a P.O. box or the address of a center they meet at, I have a feeling it would be allowed. It seems clear that the intention was to have the "School" prize go to a group, and not to an individual/household - that's why there's one prize for the school, and one for the individual whose entry won. If you teach your students in a group/class setting instead of their individual homes, why don't you have them enter on behalf of the "school" name that represents that group, and see what happens? --DinsdaleP 15:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
The rules seemed to expressly prohibit homeschool entries, so I'm not eager to waste my time on it. My comment that an award would more likely be shared with students in a homeschool environment than in a union-controlled public school environment stands, and I doubt many would even dispute it. It's common for public school students to lack funding for basic resources despite overall budgets that are astronomical.--Aschlafly 15:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Count me as a disputer, then, if you believe that unionized schools would keep an award earned by students from being shared with students. I'll write Subway and ask them to clarify the rule, because I doubt they'd have a problem accepting an entry from an official homeschooling group or association, just from individuals schooled at home. --DinsdaleP 17:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Crocker on Al Qaeda

I hope he's right, but after George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" debacle in 2003 and Dick Cheney's 2005 assessment that the insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," (along with a prediction that the fighting would end before the Bush administration leaves office), one would hope that our leadership would stop talking about progress (the reality) as if victory is around the corner (the wish). This is a long-term engagement, period. --DinsdaleP 15:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)


I wanted to create an article on photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, but it was apparently already created and then deleted. Please undelete it, so an article can be made about one of the most marvelous photographers of the modern era. Naturally, I will not include any objectionable material.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see an outpouring of interest in this ideological favorite of liberals, Tom. So the answer is "no".--Aschlafly 21:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
That is unfortunate. His Patti Smith photos are almost without exception amazingly beautiful, and his frank portrayal of homosexual topics was groundbreaking. While ranging from stunning photoexplorations of flowers to brash displays of deliberate obscenity, his mastery of composition was boundless. Consider this photo's astonishing composition, for example, and its beautiful use of gray tones. If not for his amazing art, Mapplethorpe should at least be recognized as highly notable because of controversies about his work, such as with the NEA and in Britain. Please reconsider.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Uh, yeah. Let's have an article about a guy who is lauded by liberals for photographing naked gay men with bullwhips shoved where the sun don't shine. Jinxmchue 10:27, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Mapplethorpe was also noted for his use of platinum-based printmaking, as opposed to the silver-based prints used almost universally. They create an entirely different tonal effect in the finished prints, which is one of the reasons his work stands out on the aesthetic merits regardless of the specific subject. Instead of censoring any mention of an important artist because of some aspects of his work, why not let TomMoore create one that's accurate but family-friendly, and lock the page afterwards? --DinsdaleP 11:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
By that logic, we shouldn't have an article on Hitler, either. Is this going to be an encyclopedia, or a Compendium Of Things Conservatives Approve Of? --Gulik 17:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Luckily, Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive article on this subject, documenting his works, his biography, his influence on culture, related controversies, quite well-referenced with links to sources and official as well as unofficial websites. As long as we censor him from Conservapedia, WP is where people will head for information. In other words, please reconsider. Etc 07:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
If someone wants to draft a Mapplethorpe entry that is free of liberal bias -- in contrast with Wikipedia -- then let's look at a draft. But in the more likely case that someone thinks he's going to push liberal values in a new Mapplethorpe entry that does not tell the honest truth, forget it.--Aschlafly 09:53, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Can you please point out exactly what you consider to be "liberal bias" in the Wikipedia article, and tell me how it differs from the "honest truth"? The very second sentence of the article mentions how his works created controversy, so I don't agree with your statement that he is an "ideological favorite". The bulk of the article deals with his equipment and techniques, and amongst the few subjective statements about the quality of his works are quotes such as "nothing more than the sensational presentation of potentially obscene material" - can't really count that as praise, either.
Anyway, regardless of the current state of the Wikipedia article, I see no reason to permanently delete and censor this subject from Conservapedia - unless you actually want people to turn to Wikipedia when they seek the truth about controversial subjects. Etc 18:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
I will try to work up a draft on my userspace.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:41, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Done.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:10, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Good work! Etc 18:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't see anything Hitler did paraded around in museums and galleries as "art" to be praised and lauded over. Jinxmchue 12:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

You know, I'm almost inclined to take it back. I wouldn't mind having an article on Mapplethorpe just to see the libs' reactions to an honest, realistic description of his homo-erotic pornography. But that's not really a good basis for adding material to CP. Jinxmchue 13:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Do you have some problem with my proposed version?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:43, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Tom, your effort is praiseworthy but does not disclose how Mapplethorpe was promoted by liberals primarily because he glorified homosexuality, a lifestyle that cuts short people's lifespan and caused Mapplethorpe himself to die at the young age of 42. His taxpayer-funded work is a bit like the glorification of smoking in the mid-1900s, which did not equally display the avoidable tragedy caused by smoking.--Aschlafly 20:16, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Are you saying we shouldn't have an article on smoking either, because it's been glorified by liberals? Etc 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Feel free to put the article up and add whatever additional sourced information you have.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:33, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High is probably better described as a pot-smoking surfer than a "nitwit". --Ampersand 20:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

It's a headline, Ampersand. If you can come up with a six-letter improvement on nitwit, then let's hear it. And, by the way, the stupidity of Penn's character is emphasized in the movie.--Aschlafly 21:16, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Spicoli is a nitwit, but I doubt Sean Penn is best known for that role. Using the words "realistic portrayal" is a thinly veiled attack on his intelligence, and I don't think it belongs on any "News" section, where objectivity should be the keyword. It's best to summarize an actor's career by listing notable achievements at the peak of his performance, rather than minor roles at the beginning of the career. ATang 11:28, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

That was Sean Penn's defining role, the one that made him a "star", the one that he is best remembered for. Which other role do you have in mind? Sean Penn uses his popularity as an actor as a soapbox, and it's appropriate to explain what that popularity is based on.--Aschlafly 11:35, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I would rank his Oscar-winning performance in Mystic River as higher in importance than his supporting role in Fast Times, since the Academy Awards is one of the highest honours in acting (regardless of their questionable criteria for selection). It was surely not his "defining role" - how many films after that has him portraying a nitwit? You may personally remember him best for that role - and the reasons for that may simply be the film's liberal views on sex and drugs - but others may not. If you wish to state that he uses his popularity for political activism, why not simply state that in the front section, instead of indirectly calling him a nitwit? ATang 12:01, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I thought the "nitwit" reference to Penn was pretty funny and pretty accurate. Mind you, he and the rest of the Cannes jury did a good job in a difficult year. --KeithJoseph 18:52, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

I'm confused. Is this the same Sean Penn who played a nitwit who raised his daughter with little trouble until she started asking hard questions like, "Why are some men bald?" (His answer: because their foreheads go up high) --Ed Poor Talk 19:21, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmmmm.....I thought he played a mentally retarded person, not a "nitwit", and that by the films end was deemed the most suitable father for his daughter. --KingOfNothing 21:10, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Genuine Bafflement at Reference To Multi-Culturalism

The entry on the sad stabbing in London includes the phrase "Multiculturalism must have its sacrifices". True enough, but what on earth does it have to do with this story? Where is there any mention of another culture in this news piece? I am genuinely baffled. Am I being thick here? --KeithJoseph 02:02, 26 May 2008 (GMT)


The "In the News" secton of the front page reads,

"Harry Potter supporting star Robert Knox stabbed to death in a London pub, after confronting a habitual thief and troublemaker. Multiculturalism must have its sacrifices. Sunday Mirror (London, UK).[3]"

I don't get it. What does "multiculturalism" have to do with this?--MichaelK 21:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

God rest his soul. I too don't see how multiculturalism had to do. ---user:DLerner--- 21:10, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The newspapers have not been forthcoming about the identity of the murderer, even though a room full of people saw him and he was promptly arrested, presumably with blood on his clothing. Odd, wouldn't you say?--Aschlafly 21:13, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

In the UK, reports about a suspect tend to be very limited until someone has been charged. This is because of contempt of court laws that are designed to protect a suspect's right to a fair trial.--KimSell 07:20, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
So he was obviously a ... (help me out here), the only thing you have from the article is that he was black, "Then last night we were all in the bar having a drink when word started going round that the black lad we'd seen last week was coming down to start trouble. We told the bouncer, where are you going with this? According to the article, they have someone in custody, maybe they're trying to get him to confess before leaking the name. (Remember, in England the libel laws are very stringent, all you have to do is call someone an ass and you get charged with libel...). Whoever the thug is I hope they lock the mamzer up for the rest of his life! ---user:DLerner--- 21:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't post the item, and don't know where the multiculturalism reference came from. I do know that there is nothing libelous about reporting who was arrested, and if they're waiting for a confession then that might mean waiting forever. So the newspapers are not telling all they know, and when that happens it's not unreasonable to speculate.--Aschlafly 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
When you announce the name of an arrest to the media/public, the plebs/morons/media/Nancy Grace prejudge you and assume guilt, in England, they apparently don't release names unless they've been officially charged. (Would be refreshing to have that here, wouldn't it? That way someone scooped up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, won't have to carry the stigma of public humiliation.) ---user:DLerner--- 21:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and when the name is released, the person involved "is assisting the police in their enquiries." And Everybody Knows What That Means, don't they?--TerryHTalk 21:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Postscript: This is about multiculturalism because not only is this an interracial crime, but also—and not to put too fine a point on the matter, as they say on that side of the pond—in the England of today, all too often one does not require a recent immigrant to assimilate into the culture. I am going to assume, absent any evidence to the contrary, that the perpetrator is a first-generation immigrant from a Commonwealth member country in Africa. And where he comes from, his codes allow him to do exactly what he did and for the motive that he had, which was: revenge. And in school one does not question such codes. Why? Multiculturalism, that's why.--TerryHTalk 21:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Book deal and appearance on Oprah? ---user:DLerner--- 21:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
More likely, "He is assisting the police in their enquiries" is the equivalent of "he is a suspect in the crime that the police are enquiring into."--TerryHTalk 21:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Terry, that was equally prejudiced and racist all in the span of a few sentences, while only knowing the color of his skin, you immediately assume he's a savage. ---user:DLerner--- 22:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

No, DLerner, before running like a liberal to knee-jerk and unjustified cries of "racism", recognize that "multiculturalism" is not about "race", but about "culture". The anticipated fight had conflicting expectations about the level of violence to be used. You have not even recognized that yet, let alone attempted to explain it. Please do.--Aschlafly 22:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
sigh: (Another liberal knee-jerk reaction, I know....) My assumption of racism was based on the fact that all we know about the killer is that he's black, we know nothing of his heritage, education, family etc, and yet someone writes I am going to assume, absent any evidence to the contrary, that the perpetrator is a first-generation immigrant from a Commonwealth member country in Africa. That doesn't sound even the slightest bit racist to you?
Oh, and Michael, why don't you take off you klan robe and open your eyes. Statements like that pave the road for genocide. ---user:DLerner--- 22:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
DLerner, first of all, you have not stated "all we know." We know he brought two knives to a bar fight and murdered someone, and that suggests something about his culture. He was not crazy, as he came with friends having similar expectations about the fight.
But more importantly, we don't allow the level of discourse here to degrade into crass name-calling as you've been doing. Stop it, or your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 22:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I just reread the article, I didn't see anything about multiple accomplices, just multiple victims. Bringing knives to a fight means he's interested in bloodshed which is unfortunately a universal custom. (They had knives in England before they had African immigrants). All I was saying is that we shouldn't automatically blame multiculturalism for every nasty murder, especially when we have very little information
With regards to your warning, I would suggest you take into account I had just read MichaelK's condemnation of all black cultures, then you will see my comment in context. And as personal favor, please stop calling me a liberal as if it was a dirty word, it's against the rules---user:DLerner--- 22:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, I just reread MichaelK's comments, and you have a point. He may be a parody.--Aschlafly 22:41, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah. Is it okay if I delete them?--MichaelK 22:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, you can delete it entirely, not just with a strike-through. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:58, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"All we know is he is black" Do we? How do we know that? --KeithJoseph 15:24, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

"OK, I just reread MichaelK's comments, and you have a point. He may be a parody."

What an interesting observation. Considering all the attempts here to justify this entry, one would have to conclude that it was a very effective parody indeed. A lunatic conspiracy theory -- The liberal media wishes to hide the race of the murderer! -- has been invented to make sense of one mischievous non sequitur . It's amazing what unlovely attitudes use of the word "multiculturalism" can expose. --KeithJoseph 16:49, 26 May 2008 (GMT)

It's even more amazing how some react to any criticism of multiculturalism, as though that is something that somehow may never, ever be criticized.--Aschlafly 11:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I would certainly agree with you on that. --KeithJoseph 17:07, 26 May 2008 (GMT


Notice that the video was a rating of one. Does YouTube have a liberal bias too? Rockthecasbah 21:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Youtube ratings are placed by the viewers (6,097 at last count), not all of them rate the video, and I'm willing to bet that those who hate the site put the lowest rating, while those who participate in the site (myself included) gave it the highest rating. ---user:DLerner--- 21:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, DLerner ... thanks! As to "Rockthecasbah", the bias of the commenters on YouTube is pretty obvious, wouldn't you say?--Aschlafly 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
This is how:

Sites linking to this video (5)

1,199 272 162 49 42

The atheists found the video (probably "discovering" it from this very website).

And yes, YouTube probably does have a liberal bias in that the majority of its members are liberals. Jinxmchue 00:40, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

"The majority of YouTube members are liberals" is more a comment about the English-speaking world than about YouTube, since very, very few people aren't YouTube members these days. MrGrieves 00:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
MrGrieves, I think you overestimate the membership of YouTube by a few hundred million people. It's a terrific site but there are many people who are not plugged into it, particularly many voters.--Aschlafly 18:05, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Memorial Day

I hope no one will think this is a shameless plug (although I guess it is, a little) but in honor of Memorial Day, I've posted two articles on American Medal of Honor winners: David McCampbell and George Davis.--Frey 11:40, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

This Site

Hello all. First off, I'd like to say that I don't fully agree with many of the things you say on this website. But, instead of some people (i.e. most of the people who write these articles, it seems)who simply bash others belief's left, right and centre, I'm curious. First off, can you scientifically prove Intelligent Design? The only proof I see on this website is things evolution cannot explain. Secondly, if this website was created because you believe Wikipedia is of a liberal bias, is it not hypocritical to make a website with straight, conservative bias? Would it not be better to make a website where we have no bias? One where someone could go to get the pure,facts unblemished by personal beliefs? Well, thank you for your times :)--JZed 22:03, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

The criticism of Wikipedia is that it pretends not to have bias, when it has enormous bias. See Bias in Wikipedia. On Conservapedia, we disclose our point-of-view up-front, as Wikipedia should.
The issue of scientific "proof" is a philosophical question that can be raised about many scientific theories, not simply Intelligent Design. I'm not going to try to address that right now.--Aschlafly 22:25, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

90/10 rule

I am a bit confused. How can someone get a 90/10 block after a single edit ? It is laughable if a single conversation is taken as 100% talk!--MauriceJ 15:20, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Wise King Solomon stated that a dead fly in the perfume make it stinks. Well if you only have one dead fly of a post in a talk page, you really haven't built up sufficient goodwill to overlook you poor post and keep the privilege of posting at Conservapedia. I realize that many liberals feel the world owes them, but in reality that is just a false liberal myth like the false evolution myth. Conservative 15:36, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
Could you guys at least be honest and admit that the 90/10 rule is applied primarily for ideological reasons? People come here to complain how bad Wikipedia administration is, yet someone can make one ideologically bad edit on Conservapedia and get instantly blocked, with an explanation no better than, "That's the way it is." Indeed, I wouldn't even have found out about Conservapedia except for the fact that someone complained about my actions as a Wikipedia administrator when I blocked an anonymous user who had been causing problems for a month. And I think I was a lot more patient with this user on Wikipedia than Conservapedia administrators are with editors who cause problems here. If Conservapedia administrators are going to block at the drop of a hat, that's their right, but it's dishonest to see claims here about bad Wikipedia administrators who are making bad blocks. --Elkman 16:24, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Does not hurt either of us. By the way don't call me son. I am quite keen to see your debate skills by the way where you cannot block to win debates!--Mauricius 16:12, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Elkman, I really don't hear Wikipedia complain too much about Conservative editors trying to purposefully introduce errant material into their wiki or other such nonsense. Liberals have such a low regard for the truth that they have no problem introducing purposefully errant material into a wiki and even bragging about it. I have no problem with banning people on the first offense when they are behaving badly given the volume of foolish liberals that CP has contended with. Perhaps if liberals know that we are quick on the banning draw in regards to pure nonsense, we will get less nonsense directed at us. Conservative 17:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The 90/10 rule is not to be used after one edit. I will expressly say that. If a user's first edit is that bad, like obscene, they can be blocked for other reasons like obscenity. One of our stated differences from Wikipedia is that we do not block for ideology. DanH 17:07, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Philip J. Rayment 07:42, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
If that is policy, could it please be put up on one of the rules pages?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Uh, am I getting close to breaking this rule, or am I well beyond breaking it? I guess this is goodbye. --MichaelK 13:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Microlight in NZ

Funny thing about that Microlight in NZ. Those pilots prayed and came down safetly, ironically next to a Jesus billboard however several days previous a microlight in NZ went up and crashed killing both passengers. I bet the dead guys prayed too. AdenJ 06:14, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't be too sure about that last point. Also, perhaps in the other case, the people weren't Christians. Philip J. Rayment 07:50, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
AdenJ, your comment is illogical. If I replaced your statement about prayer with "went to the hospital," would you also insist that it's worthless to go to the hospital in a time of crisis? Something doesn't have to work 100% of the time, precisely as desired, to be effective and worthwhile.--Aschlafly 08:29, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
AdenJ if I replaced your statement about prayer with "prayed to the sun god," would you also insist it's worthless to go pray to the sun god in a time of crisis? Something doesn't have to work 100% of the time, precisely as desired, to be effective and worthwhile. (sorry if i copied your sentence Aschlafly, but it was to make a point, and i was to lazy to rephrase it).
And the fact that they came down next to a Jesus billboard is irrelevant, if they crashed in the feild and died, they would have crashed next to the billboard. and Aschlafly, if god hears every prayer, then he has to chose to save the lives of some who pray, and let others (who also pray) die, unlike at a hospital where they try to save everyone if they can.-Greenmeanie 22:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


I was wondering, as to the separation of boys and girls in school, whether the students can be separate but equal. Did something change since the civil rights movement? Is it ok to discriminate on the basis of gender as opposed to race? Just wondering... Rockthecasbah 13:35, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we make distinctions based on gender all the time, and hope to continue to do so. In the case of education, it can be productive to separate the genders and that's why 392 public schools are doing so for certain classes. Surely you don't think the courts should declare it always illegal to separate genders?!--Aschlafly 19:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Discrimination is okay when there is a valid reason to discriminate. To cite what might be a silly example, when you go to a restaurant, you might discriminate between the pork and the beef, and there's nothing wrong with this. Discrimination should only occur when there is a valid reason to discriminate. So paying different wages to two different people doing the same job for the sole reason that one is male and one is female is not wrong because it's "discriminatory", but because it's unfairly discriminatory. And treating two different people differently simply because one has more melanin (the brown colouring that everyone except albinos have) in their skin is unfair, except in the relatively few cases where the shade of brown matters (e.g. a "white" (little melanin) actor playing a "black" (lots of melanin) historical figure). Now whilst paying different amounts to males and females for the same work is unfair, it remains true that males and females are different, so if there is a circumstance where that difference is relevant, then there is nothing unfair about discriminating in such cases.
The case of segregation in classes is not quite in the same category, however, because they are not being treated unequally, and if it's true (as I suspect it can be) that they learn better when taught separately, then that seems reasonable grounds for doing so.
Philip J. Rayment 07:52, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Rock is confusing segregation with discrimination. Men and women have segregated dressing rooms and toilets, due to privacy and modesty concerns. Boys and girls play separately because they are inherently different. Co-ed schools don't always work, so experimented with segregated classes sounds like it could bear good fruit. "The proof is in the pudding."
But some people are so determined to maintain that the male mind and the female mind are the same. They don't want any evidence to come out that might contradict their unscientific theory. --Ed Poor Talk 13:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
"They don't want any evidence to come out that might contradict their unscientific theory", that applies to other things besides segregation, lol.-Greenmeanie 22:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Austin Cline Stuff

Just wanted to say thank you to whoever deleted all that stuff; don't know who, or else this would be on their page. It makes the front page and such look much more encyclopedic, and I actually feel like I've been listened to. :)--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:56, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

We listen to you when you're right; try being right more often. <grin> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
I deleted it. I was happy to oblige the request of you, PJR, and Deborah. Conservative 20:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberal sex-ed indoctrination 101

Perfectly acceptable by liberal standards - especially without parental knowledge or consent. Jinxmchue 13:46, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

As a pretty far-left liberal, I can tell you that no, that is not acceptable by my standards.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:51, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm very liberal as well and would be more than furious had this happened to my kids.--Iconoclastbeggar 16:40, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
It sounds to me like you're a bit over-ready to take the role of expert regarding what is "perfectly acceptable by liberal standards." I don't believe the article mentions many liberals running to her support. Fishal 16:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Great news story

The children are coming home to the YFZ Ranch! Wonderful news! It would make a perfect Main Page news story, no? We all welcome them back from the arms of the jackbooted State into the arms of those who love them. BrotherJim 19:02, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

What kind of love do you mean? SugarCup 23:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment - I mean the love of their families and husbands? What did you think I meant? Anyway, the news just gets better - Warren Jeffs has now been cleared of four of the charges, there's only four more to defeat, and all the children are home again with their families! It's a wonderful day, Thanks Be! BrotherJim 22:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)


Front page story? Ajkgordon 08:31, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't know. I defer to other Sysops as to whether this is legitimate or newsworthy. Blair's newfound religion seems a bit incongruous with the positions of his party and himself when was in power. Also, uniting religions is a dubious goal. But thanks for alerting us to this interesting story. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:43, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
My pleasure. Just a couple of comments in reply:
  • Blair was religious before. He converted to RC shortly after leaving 10 Downing Street but he was a high-church Anglican before that. Most people recognise that being overtly religious in British politics is not a vote winner which is probably why he kept his faith quiet and why he delayed his conversion. Although he did talk about the role his faith played in his political decisions including the one to invade Iraq - so he wasn't completely silent on the issue when Prime Minister.
  • While his party, the Labour Party, may be somewhat anti-religious, he was instrumental in encouraging faith schools in the UK - a policy that still causes controversy.
Ajkgordon 11:59, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
It's not newsworthy. It should just be an external link on the Tony Blair article. And bed nets are the least effective way of stopping malaria; it's a typical liberal "solution" per environmentalist dogma. Actually, DDT sprayed on the inside walls of a dwelling is the most effective (and cheapest) solution.
A couple of years ago, I forced Wikipedia to expose the anti-DDT bias of the UN and environmentalists. More than one African has thanked me personally for this. (Do you know how many lives are saved when a country is allowed to use DDT to kill the mosquitoes which spread the malaria parasite?) --Ed Poor Talk 12:08, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, just thought it might be interesting to a CP audience seeing as he was a stalwart ally of the US in the WoT, was probably one of GWB's closest friends in spite of his socialist background, and now proclaims his faith as one of his main political drivers. Ajkgordon 15:11, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
But! But! But! He is a liberal! He is a Socialist! So, he must hate religion, and therefore he must be lying about his "faith". Which means he is a liar, which means we shoudln't trust him. Which means stuff he agrees with must be bad. So, the war in Iraq must be a bad thing! Headasplode!--KimSell 07:51, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, well, when you put it that way ... --Ed Poor Talk 16:05, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Problem with your analysis

After reviewing this site for a couple of days, I will say I expect my account may be blocked for saying this, but here goes; As a terrorism/counterterrorism scholar, your comment on the front page about liberals "always being wrong" on issues of terrorism bears little resemblance to the truth. In fact, claiming either a liberal or conservative approach is best is kind of like claiming one type of car is the very best. Not all cars are attempting to do all things--some save gas, some carry heavy loads, etc.

Some conservatives believe in a doctrine of overwhelming force, some believe in an investigative approach. Likewise, some liberals may believe in a policy that includes overwhelming force, or investigation. An essential question with terror/countrterror initiatives lies in the response as it is viewed by participating governments, and states on the receiving end. Simply put, a policy that makes England happy, may anger Israel, or Syria, or, or.... The Bush Administration made a grave mistake, in my opinion, by making this "war on terror" such a public process. In that sense, he doomed the WoT to failure. No serious prosecution of the criminals could involve campaign politics, and public displays, such as the aircraft carrier photo-op. These are seen, in the eyes of our attackers, as successes in that so much attention has been diverted to their cause.

Oddly, the problem of terrorism for a government is not unlike the a public school dealing with pornography, say. If the teachers, principals, etc, make a big deal out of pornography being so taboo that is forbidden, some kids will seek it out. In the same way, some people will seek out the terrorists, or their proxies, and try to learn what it is they are all about. And some, but certainly not many, will join them. The more attention the WoT gets here, the more we actually do help terrorists recruit.

I'm headed out of town, but I thought it worth mentioning since so much is made of it on this site.

Respectfully, Garaas 13:13, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Surely it's completely inappropriate for a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia' to link to an opinion piece as a Main Page News item? What about that particular article makes it 'News'? If the News section is going to turn into daily links to editorial columns on other websites, your In The News section will lack any credibility whatsoever. Of course, it may well be "of interest", but News? I don't think so - do others? StatsFan 20:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Possible breaking news: UK educationalist condemns slide to anarchy in UK state schools

Schools organisation chief Chris Parry decribes state (public) schools fighting a 'losing battle' in the face of 'unteachable' and 'uncontrollable' students.,,2283181,00.html Bugler 06:21, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

The atheistic government in Britain admits its government schools are fighting a "losing battle" in teaching kids. Hint for the liberals: try returning to classroom prayer. The current headline needs correction: (1) Chris Parry represents an organisation of independent schools, not the government. (2) Classroom prayer is allowed in England. --Jalapeno 15:17, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Regarding your second point, it may be "allowed" (i.e. not legislated against), but is it commonly done? Regardless, I do think that the response is rather narrow: Returning to a Christian worldview, not just classroom prayer, would be far better. Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Could we please get error #1 corrected? Such a misstatement doesn't reflect well on the front page. Wandering 16:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Hello?Wandering 11:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I would certainly agree with your last sentence. Classroom prayer (in the sense it is defined on this site) is the norm in faith schools within the state sector, however the mandatory "daily act of collective worship" is interpreted in a very loose way in most community schools. I don't think this is a cause of secularisation, but rather a consequence of it, and I have great sympathy for those headteachers who try to implement the collective worship requirement in the face of hostility from largely secular school communities. I'm not aware of any case of anyone being prevented from praying in schools, and indeed schools have a legal obligation to accomodate "reasonable" religious expression. Anyway this is beside the main point, which is that the articles referenced in the headline directly contradict the first sentence of the headline. --Jalapeno 07:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

[Deleted by admin] Schlafly, get your facts straight before you start taking swipes at other countries. Believe it or not, not every social ill is the product of a liberal government, or a liberal mindset. New Labour is Thatcherism, not socialism.Liberalnproud Schlafly, get your facts straight before you start taking swipes at other countries. Believe it or not, not every social ill is the product of a liberal government, or a liberal mindset. New Labour is Thatcherism not socialism. Oh, and by the way, DON'T GIVE IT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT!Liberalnproud

"Liberalnproud", you're clueless. Labour Party leader Gordon Brown is a socialist and it looks like even the Brits are getting fed up with him.--Aschlafly 13:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, I am British (note 'British', not 'a Brit'), and I know Thatcherism when I see it. Brown's party might be called the Labour Party, but it most certainly doesn't stand for the rights of the British proletariat. Yes, we are fed up with him, because he is anything but socialist!Liberalnproud

Nearly 800,000 Google sites return for the search "Gordon Brown" and socialist! Here's the first one, which is a fellow Brit (sorry, "British man"!) identifying Gordon Brown as a socialist: [3]--Aschlafly 20:27, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Let's Google Fight it folks:
  • "Gordon Brown" + socialist = 790,000 hits
  • "Gordon Brown" + capitalist = 1,980,000 hits
  • "Gordon Brown" + liberal = 1,270,000
  • "Gordon Brown" + conservative = 3,070,000
If we use the logic above then Gordon Brown is a conservative capitalist. I'll be the first to admit that these results (especially the last) are completely useless, you cannot use Google to determine a person's politics. StatsMsn 20:39, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Additionally, googling "reagan conservative" gets you only 418,000 hits, while googling "reagan liberal" gets you 675,000 hits. FernoKlump 22:23, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I thought the most telling was "Gordon Brown" + martian which returns some 97,000 hits with the top link describing him as being from Mars. QED, yo. --Taciturn 11:19, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Article of the year

Now, I am not saying I have a problem with the article, but I do think it would be nice to have some other note-worthy articles on the main page too, because I think people visiting the site would like to see more of what this site has to offer on the main page. Besides seeing the article on athiesim all the time. --ITSAMEMARIO 13:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Lack of "school prayer" cause of low academic success rate in Britain?

Does anyone have statistics that actually show that athiests do worse academically than religious people? I think it's more likely that Britian's nanny state system (which I guess is also known as "socialism) is more of the cause. Maybe since British students know that they will be taken care of by their government no matter how hard they fail, many of them see no reason to succeed. On the other hand, I've met many people who were educated in third world countries who are far ahead of students in the United States in terms of what they've learned. I've met a 10 year old kid in Cambodia who could name all of the United States' presidents in order. Maybe that's because getting an education means they're less likely to live in abject poverty. --MichaelK 20:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT

All of the US presidents? In order? Now that's an education! [/sarky] For Quirke's sake, learning lists of names entirely specific to the United States of America hardly qualifies as meaningful. Being able to memorise a list of names is fine, but it is hardly history, and smacks a little of dogma and brainwashing. Does he understand the United States democratic system? Does he understand the benefits and drawbacks of the current two-party system? Does he understand why such a system has developed and why it has endured? That's an education; a list of names or a list of dates is not. You can teach a parrot to recite names without it ever having understood them, and its understanding that education must be about.
It was just an example. --MichaelK 10:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Anyway, rant aside, I'm sure you can find some statistics that prove what you want. It all depends on how you measure things and how you qualify them. This is exactly what's wrong with the current "minister's sons are strikingly productive" compared to "second-generation atheists" proved by... a google search! Take a look at such a search: "minister's sons" comes up with news headlines about cabinet ministers or Prime Ministers, whilst "second generation atheist" seems to find only results on Conservapedia itself and a small number of biographical sites.
More to the point, why do you qualify the UK as being socialist? Granted, it has a government perhaps more left-wing than the United States, but that hardly qualifies as being socialist. Then again, considering this very site has accused Obama and Clinton of being "Marxist", by comparison, the UK is probably the Soviet Union.

KarlJaeger 09:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

First-generation atheists raised in a religious environment may do well; second-generation atheists may not. But that is beside the point about whether an atheistic environment for all students (regardless of their faith) is helpful or hurtful to the group. Looking at history, it appears to be hurtful, as one would expect. For example, one would expect people who thrive on faith to underachieve in an atheistic environment.--Aschlafly 23:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Evidence?--KimSell 07:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
And one would expect an atheist to underachieve in a religious enviroment. What's your point? KarlJaeger 09:21, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
There are far more students having religion who are forced to endure the unfamiliar and undesired atheistic environment of government schools than there are atheists forced to endure a religious education. So, assuming that one is less productive in a hostile environment than in a supportive one, the overall effect is negative.--Aschlafly 09:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
In the United States, I am willing to concede the point that yes, an atheist schooling system is undesirable, considering the majority of Christians. Attempting to disparage a religion is a mistake in a religious area. But, I argue that a school system that emphasises tolerance, and attempts to steer clear of what for many is a personal choice, is more desirable, since the majority is far from unanimous([4]). School should teach what is empirically provable, and leave spirituality to the churchs and other religious bodies. Do you not agree? What confuses me, is that you claim that the system is "undesired". Do you not live in the greatest democracy on the planet? If the government is making mistakes, they're mistakes that the majority of your citizens wish. KarlJaeger 09:37, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
So schools should stick to maths and science, and leave out social studies, economics, art, music, and so on, because they are not "empirically provable"? This is one of the problems with the Western world today: many are worshippers of scientism, which considers science to be all there is. Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
KarlJaeger, the United States is a republic. Andrew Schlafly, while I understand that oppressing religious students, such as not allowing them to pray during school hours and banning religious clothing and decorations, may create an environment that is not conducive to their learning, refusing to encourage prayer does not do this. --MichaelK 11:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
@MichaelK, thank you, that was the point that I was trying (haphazardly, I'll admit) to make. What do you mean by "the United States is a republic". Surely, as a republic, my statement of "If the government is making mistakes, they're mistakes that the majority of your citizens wish." is accurate?
@PhilipJRayment, economics is harder to empirically prove, but provable it remains, hence why it is studied. Chaos theory advocates that complex systems are relatively impossible to understand in their fullness, but smaller parts of the system can and are studied as part of economics. That's the whole point of studying it. If it were not empirically provable, the whole shebang simply wouldn't exist. Music can be analysed through mathematics, hence the concept of the octave. Art is harder, as it is more subjective, but you can critique it, analyse it, decide what was done well and what was not. Not so with religion and spirituality.
KarlJaeger 12:57, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
"If it were not empirically provable, the whole shebang simply wouldn't exist.": Does that mean that if God exists, He is therefore empirically provable?
Yes, music can be analysed, but much of music is to do with non-empirical factors, just as with art, which I notice you've totally avoided saying can be empirically proven, instead resorting to "critique", "analysis", etc., and then made the ludicrous claim that the same doesn't apply to religion! Goodness, religion has been critiqued and analysed probably far more than art. Much of "religion" (specifically, the Bible) is history, and history can be studied, analysed, critiqued, etc. just as much as most of those other things.
So in summary, you are attempting (woefully) to draw an artificial distinction between "religion" and other things that are studied in school. Your argument has failed dismally.
Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
My point is to allow classroom prayer when the teachers and students want it. It was the censoring of classroom prayer that caused the turn for the worse in schools. I've taught 145 teenagers for 6 years now, and can tell you it makes an enormous difference to be able to begin class with a prayer. Insist on banning it, and there will be undeniable adverse consequences. Millions of people do better with prayer, and taking that away from them is like taking water away from someone in a desert.--Aschlafly 13:03, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I think people object to teaching intelligent design as science in science class. If people want to teach about such tings in social studies or anthropology classes as something some people believe then there's nothing wrong with that.
Teachers and students should be allowed to pray together, why do you want a teacher leading the entire class in a prayer? Let them go somewhere else to pray or pray when class is not in session. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that the purpose of a government-established and funded school cannot be to lead students in prayer.
I don't think it is the censoring of classroom prayer that is the cause of the failure of the academic system. It's low standards for teachers and students involved in it. I spent my whole K-12 education in public schools. I've had teachers who can't speak a single language fluently, I've had teachers tell me things that I know are just plain wrong, and most of the students don't even want to be there. It seems that the public education system caters to the lowest students at the expense of those who have a chance to succeed. My stochastic models professor told me that the math classes we're taking in college today are classes he took in highschool back in the 1960s. High schools should teach calculus. Students who can't figure that out should not have the same diploma as those who can. --MichaelK 14:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
"I think people object to teaching intelligent design as science in science class.": Only people opposed to ID.
"If people want to teach about such tings in social studies or anthropology classes as something some people believe then there's nothing wrong with that.": Er, yes there is, because it incorrectly teaches people that it's totally subjective and not scientific.
""Congress shall make no law ..." means that the purpose of a government-established and funded school cannot be to lead students in prayer.": No it doesn't. It means that the government does not control the church, as was (and technically still is) the case in Britain where the ruler of the country was the head of the official church.
"I don't think it is the censoring of classroom prayer that is the cause of the failure of the academic system. It's low standards for teachers and students involved in it.": I don't think censoring classroom prayer is either. Rather, the reason, and the reason for the low standards, is because we no longer teach that people were made in the Image of God, the perfect Creator of the universe, but instead teach them that they are the result of a cosmic accident, nothing more than evolved pond scum. That really inspires one to do well, doesn't it?
Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
If you put it that way, and believe it yourself, then you will be discouraged for sure. If you view evolution as millions of years of competition, then you would see that we are the result of winners - not "evolved pond scum". (You can always put a spin to any viewpoint - it's all a matter of perspective.) ATang 11:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately, that's the way that many do believe it, often with tragic consequences. To take just one of several examples I could quote, here we have a well-known evolutionist explain the motivation that evolution provides each day for him... er, perhaps not.
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[5]
Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Michael, you wrote, "Teachers and students should be allowed to pray together, why do you want a teacher leading the entire class in a prayer?" Answers include:
  • it worked for hundreds of years
  • it clears the minds and emotions for the learning to follow
  • it instills respect at a time when it is needed
  • it offers the opportunity to pray for a classmate in need
  • the teacher and students want to do it, and it builds collegiality
  • there is no legitimate reason to censor it (hatred of religion is not a legitimate reason)
Do I need to list more reasons?--Aschlafly 14:23, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Some students may not be religious. --MichaelK 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
So what? Often the entire class does welcome the prayer without any objection. And in the rare case there is someone who objects, surely you don't think one person can censor everyone else just by saying he doesn't like something.
I noticed that you did not refute any of my six examples of why classroom prayer is desirable.--Aschlafly 14:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
  • it worked for hundreds of years
As I said before, it's clear that factors independent of the halting of mandatory prayer are responsible for the recent failure of the pubic education system.
You may have said that, but I don't see evidence for it and just as the elimination of values from government can lead to disaster, the elimination of prayer from school can predictably lead to decline.--Aschlafly 15:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
It's just common sense that problems that obviously exist- such as grade inflation, low standards, and loss of work ethic- are much more likely to lower success than the seemingly irrelevant issue of school prayer. --MichaelK 17:06, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Prayer is not a chant or recitation, it's talking to the Creator of the universe, of life, and (indirectly) of you and me. He is capable of essentially anything, and wants to help if we ask. But you implicitly dismiss prayer as "seemingly irrelevant". So perhaps this has more to do with your apparent belief in no God than anything else. In other words, you are dismissing school prayer not for practical reasons, but simply because you don't believe in it. Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

  • it clears the minds and emotions for the learning to follow
I don't think religion clears people's minds or emotions. It gives them a lot to think about, and religion is often a very emotional subject.
Obviously most disagree, which is why most pray.--Aschlafly 15:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't believe in religion or prayer, but even this point cannot be contested. It settles a person down. ATang 11:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
  • it instills respect at a time when it is needed
You did not refute this very important point.--Aschlafly 15:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
For whom or what does school prayer instill respect? --MichaelK 17:06, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
  • it offers the opportunity to pray for a classmate in need
People always have that opportunity.
 ??? There is only one opportunity for a class of students to pray: when they convene for their class.--Aschlafly 15:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Class attendance is mandatory. Why can't the religious students and teachers agree to meet somewhere to pray for someone before or after class? --MichaelK 17:06, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
  • the teacher and students want to do it, and it builds collegiality
They way I see it, it's a way to separate people into groups of believers and nonbelievers.
No, not in the typical case where everyone supports it, and not in the atypical case either where only 1 out of 20 disapproves.--Aschlafly 15:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
What about the typical case where everyone has been taught to pray in different ways and sometimes to different gods and sometimes even to their anscestors and mountains and various god-men? If you have a few Jehova's Witnesses in the classroom, do you refrain from praying to Jesus as a god to not upset them, or do you go ahead and pray to him in order to avoid neglecting the obvious status of Christ as part of the godhead? --MichaelK 17:06, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
  • there is no legitimate reason to censor it (hatred of religion is not a legitimate reason)
I'm not saying prayer should be censored, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be the purpose of the schools to make students pray. Did I ever say students and teachers shouldn't be allowed to pray? It just shouldn't be part of the curriculum. Is anything that doesn't force everyone to participate in prayer or at least stop whatever educational endeavor they may be undertaking "censorship"? --MichaelK 15:19, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, perhaps we're in agreement then. Classroom prayer is censored by people who are adamant that it not be allowed ever. I'm glad you don't support that censorship, but the censorship continues.--Aschlafly 15:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
You're right. I don't. --MichaelK 15:26, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Manual of style?

Does Conservapedia have anything equivalent to a manual of style, or anything like that? Articles seem to use all sorts of different conventions and I can't find any guidelines. I don't know if this is even the right place to ask, but there doesn't seem to be a village pump analogue either. Freethought 02:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Here: Conservapedia:Manual of Style. WilliamH 02:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Double Redirects

A sysop needs to take a look at the Double Redirects page. There are 4 pages that are locked and do not redirect correctly. FernoKlump 22:30, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Fixed, and thanks. Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Gun control campaigner murdered

Campaigner Pat Regan of 'Mothers against Guns' has been stabbed to death at her home in Leeds, England. Perhaps if Britain's socialistic gun laws were not so draconian she might have been able to protect herself against her assailant. Bugler 06:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Or maybe she would have been shot. -DrSandstone 13:02, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not quite sure what your point is... Since she's against guns, she wouldn't have procured a firearm to protect herself even if Britain's laws allowed such. You write as if she died as a result of not being able to get a gun to defend herself. What's more likely to happen is that she'd be murdered by a firearm instead of a knife. ATang 10:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
No, it's well documented that criminals invade homes in Britain now with impunity because they know the residents are unarmed. Looks like Pat Regan was the latest tragic victim of this misguided liberal policy that renders homeowners defenseless.--Aschlafly 11:56, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Of course residents in Britain have never been armed in any significant way so the point is moot. Ajkgordon 12:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
It may be unwise to jump to the conclusion that her home was invaded since it appears that her grandson has been arrested in connection with her death.[6] Jalapeno 13:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Indeed Jalapeno. Though as an aside, it is worth pointing out that the official Home Office crime statistics show a drop in numbers of domestic burglaries since their peak in 1993[7], so I wonder if Aschlafly could provide any evidence for his assertion that "it's well documented that criminals invade homes in Britain now with impunity because they know the residents are unarmed."? None of the blips in the graph appear to bear any relation to the dates of significant gun legislation in the UK (the 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms(Amendment) Acts) - indeed two of those pieces of legislation occurred after burglary numbers started falling in 1993. OurMike 13:36, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Just as an interesting little note from this side of the pond, the real concern in the UK at the moment is violent teenage crime involving knives. There's even an advertising campaign with such lines as "If you carry a knife you're more likely to get stabbed yourself".
The problem appears to be that while violent crime has fallen by around 10 percent since 1995, knife injuries among teenagers has risen - demonstrated by a recent spate of high profile cases.
Which is kind of ironic in light of the headline. Ajkgordon 13:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Eliminate guns, and violent crimes with other weapons will increase, as will the invasions of homes despite the existence of (unarmed) residents. This is logic and there is nothing ironic about it.--Aschlafly 14:06, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, there weren't guns before so again the point is moot. I meant it was ironic that the woman ran a campaign against guns but was tragically killed by a knife. Ajkgordon 14:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
And as pointed out above, in the UK the evidence is that gun legislation has had no noticeable effect on domestic burglaries, which have both risen and fallen in recent decades, apparently regardless of gun laws. Over the last 15 years, and despite two major changes to gun legislation, domestic burglaries have more than halved. Have you any evidence that "criminals invade homes in Britain now with impunity because they know the residents are unarmed?", because the crime statistics in the UK show no such correlation. OurMike 14:13, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
OurMike, it's logic. Your comment is like asking if I have any evidence that 2+3=5 ! That said, I have seen evidence and am confident you could find it easily if you really looked.--Aschlafly 14:21, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
No, it's not the same logic as saying that 2+3=5. Assuming decimal notation, 2+3=5 is always true, and is not affected by other things such as the weather, time of day, or etc. But saying that eliminating guns will result in an increase in violent crimes is not logic in the same way as 2+3=5 because many other factors could be involved that affect the outcome. And when the evidence indicates something other that what one might deduce from logic, one has to question whether the logic really is correct and not, for example, overly simplistic. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Philip, of course you and anyone else are free to believe whatever you like. But it is a logical statement that an elimination in guns will result in an increase in violence by other weapons (note that you misstated what I said). It is analogous to saying that when the price of a good increases, the demand decreases. When someone insists on denying the logical statement about guns then, yes, I wonder whether he accepts other logical statements, like the one about demand as a function of price.--Aschlafly 10:02, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
That's a better analogy that 2+3=5, because it illustrates that the "logic" is not that simple. That is, how much the demand decreases when the price rises depends on the price elasticity of the product concerned. So with some goods, if the price increases by a third, the demand drops by a third (or something like that). But with other goods—ones with a low price elasticity—if the price increases by a third the demand drops by only a tiny amount, or perhaps even not at all. That is, the demand for some things is not dependent on the price. So it illustrates well that the simple "logic" of saying that elimination of guns results in an increase in violence (merely a reference to what you said, not a misquote) is not necessarily true. It may be true, and it may be a reasonable conclusion, but it's not a logical requirement like 2+3=5 is, so requires evidence to support the argument. Philip J. Rayment 11:14, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
As a British citizen, I'd be interested in seeing this evidence (or at the very least if you would provide a link to it). Dnotice 08:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, as a British citizen, have you looked yet for the evidence you'd like to see? I don't think it will take you long to find it.--Aschlafly 10:02, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I have, without success. Please provide a link. Dnotice 10:10, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, this did not take long: "Attacks in which a knife was used in a successful mugging have soared, from 25,500 in 2005 to 64,000 in the year to April 2007. The figures mean that each day last year saw, on average, 175 robberies at knife-point in England and Wales – up from 110 the year before and from 69 in 2004-5." [8] In contrast, the United States, which declined to pass the strict gun control enacted in Britain, has not seen such a rise in knife crimes and murders.--Aschlafly 10:24, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
That's an interesting article, however, while it seems it may provide some evidence linking gun control and violence by knife, I don't think you can blame this nearly three-fold increase on gun control, unless some significant new gun control legislation was introduced around 2005. If the prohibition of guns existed in the 90s, 80s, 70s and before, then I really don't see how it can be blamed for a sudden increase in the 2000s. Certainly if guns were more widely available in the UK, then we would see more muggings by gun and less by knife, but I fail to see how that's an improvement. And, it is certainly possible that we would see fewer muggings if people were allowed to carry concealed firearms, but this article, at least, does not provide statistics to confirm that. (On a side note, the article says that knives are involved in 1 out of 5 muggings, and I assume guns must be involved in even fewer, so does that mean the vast majority are carried out solely through intimidation?) Jaguar 11:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
And yet the official statistics from the Home Office show absolutely no correlation between the availabilty of guns and the incidence of burglary. These are extremely reliable statistics, as they are based both on police recorded crime figures, and the British Crime Survey [9]. I would be very interested to see the evidence that you have found that contradicts these two sources. OurMike 14:26, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
But isn't the Home Office part of the state apparatus and therefore influenced by a pro-gun control government? Are those statistics reliable? Ajkgordon 15:35, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
No one said the overall rate of burglary changes due to gun control. What changes from gun control is a more important incidence: the occurrence of burglary or invasion of a home while someone is there. Gun control causes an increase in attacks on people while they are home, as in this story.--Aschlafly 15:37, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
You have statistics on incidents of burglary while someone is at home, in the UK? OurMike 17:05, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
The crime statistics report from the Home Office shows no rise in violent crime in the UK - the graph in fact follows much the same pattern as for domestic burglaries - though the peak was in 1995 not 1993. However it has fallen for the last twelve years[10], including one noticeable drop in 1997, which happens to be after the most recent anti-gun legislation. OurMike 17:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Some things wrong with this discussion, I'm looking at you Aschalfly! (joke). Anyway, firstly, having a gun may not protect you anyway. If she was attacked say, in the kitchen - taken by surprise, and there was a gun in the bedroom then it wouldnt of saved her. Merely allowing guns for self defense does not automatically reduce crime and you seem to suggest that people should be wandering around strapped with a pistol at all times. And a question I asked Aschlafly, to which he has not replied, so maybe someone else can: How do explain that countries that have the looser gun laws (like the US) have much higher gun crime than countries that have very strict gun laws (like Australia and NZ)? AdenJ 16:24, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course demographic and cultural influences are going to affect overall crime-by-gun rates. It's the change that matters, not the baseline cultural usage. Also, just as obvious, guns deter crimes using other weapons, like knives. Gun control in England may slightly reduce crime-by-gun, but just as surely increased crime by other weapons, as illustrated by the current epidemic of murder-by-knives there.--Aschlafly 16:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree there is big problems with knife crime, London in particular (I used to live there), however the knife crime is not caused by gun control as you seem to suggest. There are many other factors and it is mostly youth crime which has grown with the influence of alcohol and drug problems and 'gang' culture. AdenJ 16:51, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

This problem has grown because of the impotence of civil society in the face of lawless gangs. And civil society is impotent because, unlike the criminals, it is denied the right to bear arms by a socialistic governing elite. And issues such as drugs and alcohol abuse grow from the sort of moral vacuum which is inevitable in situiations - such as the state educational system - where prayer and the expression of faith are censored for fear of giving spurious "offence". Bugler 16:56, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
The criminals are also denied the right to bear arms. And as it's apparently the case that most guns in criminal hands have been stolen from law-abiding citizens, gun control also has the effect of reducing the numbers in criminal hands. As for the moral vacuum—you're right: and that is a far more important factor than dangerous weapons in the hands of all and sundry. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Then the problem at heart is not a lack of guns, its that there are lawless gangs. Fix the problem, dont just respond with more guns. No lawless gangs, no need for guns. AdenJ 16:59, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Aden, I'd suppose you'd fix a problem with rampaging wolves by waving a feather duster at them and shouting 'shoo!'. Bugler 17:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

hahahaha nice one. How do I respond to such wit? You missed the point entirely so lets try again, why is there this problem with gangs? Is it because of gun laws? AdenJ 17:08, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Aden, you truly are clueless. The problem arises because orderly and worthwhile citizens are denied the right of self defence by socialistic restrictions, while the scum of the earth, who obey neither the law of man nor the law of God, go armed to the teeth. As our American colleagues might say, 'Go figure'. Bugler 17:14, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Call the Whaaambulance, someone dropped a you're clueless. Enough of this garbage, you cant come up with a proper argument so I am wasting my time. AdenJ 17:19, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Roll up, folks: idiotic mockery, accusations of mental disturbance, avoidance of the real issue... it's Liberal style night starring AdenJ! Bugler 17:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I wanted to say "And for the price of your ticket you see conservative last wordism at its best with BUGLER!" AdenJ 23:53, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd say that your "feather duster" comment qualified as mockery. Try looking in a mirror. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
AdenJ, you are arguing against logic. Knife violence inevitably increases when gun control takes away guns as self-defense. Denying that is tantamount to ranting that 2+2 somehow does not equal 4. You have a free will to reject logic, but you're not persuading anyone who respects logic.--Aschlafly 18:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm somewhat persuaded. Does that mean I don't respect logic? Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Logically, that makes sense, but the logical result is not always the actual one. Are there statistics that knife violence is on the rise? In any case, since guns have never been generally available for self-defense in the UK, it seems doubtful that any minor tweaking of guns laws in the past 30 years will have much of an effect on crime; the overall ban on guns is the real factor. Whether you're in London in 1970 or 2008, someone breaking into a house or robbing someone on the street will be almost assured they will not have a gun pulled on them by a would-be victim. Some people love to point out that countries with strict gun laws and fewer guns have less gun crime. If, however, the overall crime rate does not go down, there is little benefit in reducing one form of crime and replacing it with another. However, some may well argue that a higher burglary rate is a fair trade off for a lower murder rate, if it comes down to that. But certainly if Country A has lax gun laws and has 10 murders by gun per 100,000 people, while Country B has strict gun laws and 1 murder by gun per 100,000, but 9 murders by knife, there is no real advantage to Country B, even though their murder by guns is much lower. Jaguar 19:17, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Guns have been legally available in the UK in the past - remember how Dr Watson was always taking his 'trusty service revolver' with him when on a jaunt with Sherlock Holmes? And although that example may come from fiction, it reflects accurately what was truth- and murder and other violent crimes were much rarer before World War I. Bugler 19:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I may have made a bit too much of a blanket statement there when I said "never," when I perhaps should have said the past 100 years or so. Maybe even a bit less. It's hard to compare today with the 19th century, but the point is that guns have not been available in the UK the way they are in the US in living memory. Laws in the 80's and 90's haven't changed that basic fact. The truth is, the murder rate in the UK is less than that in the US. What role gun control plays in that can be debated until the cows come home. However it is important to look at the murder rate, the overall crime rate, and accidental death by guns rate when making comparisons. People might be inclined to be in favor of gun control if it were to half the murder rate but double the robbery/assault rate, while they might not if it were cut cut the murder rate by 15% but increase assaults, robberies, rapes, etc. by 500%. Also, it would be foolish to pretend there aren't multiple factors in all of these statistics. Jaguar 22:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Jaguar, you said that "but the point is that guns have not been available in the UK the way they are in the US in living memory." OK, I agree, but that proves nothing. Guns have been widely owned in Britain in recent memory, or else there would not have been the repeatedly imposed gun control there or numerous murders by guns. A quick scan of the internet shows one British town reporting a decline in gun ownership recently. If it were zero percent ownership, then no decline would be notable or newsworthy.--Aschlafly 15:04, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Your logic is incorrect. The gun controls imposed in Australia, mostly in response to massacres, occurred despite guns not being widely owned. Even before gun controls in Australia, I never owned a gun, none of my family (parents, grandparents, and siblings) ever owned a gun as far as I know, I've never used a gun except on a camp a couple of times where I did a little bit of clay pigeon shooting, I was never really allowed to play with toy guns when I was growing up (even cap guns were frowned upon), I've never handled a pistol, I've never even seen a pistol except in a police holster or in a display somewhere, I've never known anyone that I knew owned a pistol (although no doubt some people I knew did own them)... Get the picture? Gun ownership was not widespread. Philip J. Rayment 23:21, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I see what you're saying, and I think there's some confusion here because people are talking in too general terms here. Even gun control is not a specific term, as anything other than the complete and utter lack of regulation on any gun ownership or sale can be termed "gun control". You say above that you agree with the statement that guns have not been available in the UK to the extent they are here, but you also say they have been "widely owned" there recently. I think those statements could use some clarification, as they seem not to support each other. I think knowing the exact limits on gun ownership in the UK,and when the laws went into effect, would help. That is information I admit I do not have.
I agree that logically, as guns are more restricted, criminals will tend to use the next best thing to intimidate, hurt, and kill, and that will often be the knife. (There are other factors too of course, which is partly what I think we're looking at with the statistics you provided. I fail to see how gun laws enacted in the 90s can lead to a sudden dramatic increase in a form of crime 10 years later). The converse of that is that as gun laws are made less restrictive, knife crimes will go down and gun crimes will go up, as criminals choose the more effective weapon. If overall rates for each type of crime stay the same, regardless of what tool is used, then one can probably conclude that gun control has little effect, either positively or negatively.
Finally, I have to take issue with your statement that there would not be numerous murders by guns if there was not widespread gun ownership. That sounds like an argument for gun control. Surely you know as well as anyone that you do not need widespread gun ownership to have numerous gun crimes. Many career criminals will find a way to get guns (and use them) even under the most strict control of guns. Jaguar 16:41, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Jaguar, I didn't say that there would not be numerous murders by guns if there was not widespread gun ownership.
Our gun control entry explains the timing in England, and obviously there is a delay between gun control and a change in the culture of criminals. The delay did not take 10 years in England, as you suggest, but of course things are not going to change overnight either. A delay of a few or even a half-dozen years between passage of a law and a change in culture is hardly surprising.--Aschlafly 17:41, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Here is what you said: "Guns have been widely owned in Britain...or else there would not have been...numerous murders by guns." So if guns hadn't been widely owned there would not have been numerous murders by guns. That's probably not what you meant to say, so I'm content not to dwell on it, but there it is. In any case, I looked at the gun control article here and didn't see any real specific details on gun control in the UK, and certainly no indication of when any such laws went into effect, so it hasn't cleared much up. I know there is logic behind the idea that when you allow gun ownership in one's house then home break-ins decrease, and when you allow concealed carry permits then muggings and assaults go down. If we want to see if this is true in the UK, we have to know if and when people were allowed to have guns in their houses and if and when that stopped, and the same for concealed carrying. Then we have to see if these crime rates increased following such changes in the law. I don't have these statistics, and don't know where to get them, off the top of my head. Perhaps some of the British editors can help out. Jaguar 18:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

When I was at Tufts, I was exposed to a computer program called the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Its purpose was to help sociologists correlate the multiplicity of factors that come up when studying human behavior.

The most common error that sociologists make, even when trying to be careful and objective, is to ignore a significant factor. SPSS helps the professional to avoid this sort of error, by highlighting correlations.

Partisans often conceal known factors; I wouldn't call this an error but (to put it mildly) an ethical lapse. If you know about factors like parental income and school graduation rates, but ignore them willfully, then what you say about race and intelligence is just an exercise in partisan manipulation. "Figures don't lie, but liars often figure." (See also Politicization of science.)

More to the point, studies of guns and the law must take into account all sorts of additional factors. The case of Jamaica is interesting, because when the government banned private handgun ownership, gun crime shot up (due to the pressure from drug smugglers and other gangs).

In the United States, we have numerous social factors other than gun laws affecting crime and incarceration; notably, a strong philosophical emphasis on "societal pressure" being responsible rather than individual choice when it comes to criminal behavior. But the biggest support for "gun control" comes from people who refuse to look at the statistics reported by John Lott, who found that violent crime goes down significantly (on a year to year basis) when private, law-abiding citizens aren't stopped from getting gun permits. --Ed Poor Talk 12:35, 3 June 2008 (EDT)


For the sake of clarity, I'd like to gather together Andy's substantive assertions thus far and request that he provides some supporting evidence. I'm including OurMike's objection to the first two as I believe it has some bite. Andy will need to address it if he's to convince anyone other than himself.

  • It's well documented that criminals invade homes in Britain now with impunity because they know the residents are unarmed.
  • Pat Regan was the latest tragic victim of this misguided liberal policy that renders homeowners defenseless.
Charitably chalked off as an over-hasty rhetorical flourish.
  • Gun control causes an increase in attacks on people while they are home.

OurMike's objection to the above

The official Home Office crime statistics show a drop in numbers of domestic burglaries since their peak in 1993.[11] None of the blips in the graph appear to bear any relation to the dates of significant gun legislation in the UK (the 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms(Amendment) Acts) - indeed two of those pieces of legislation occurred after burglary numbers started falling in 1993.

Andy again

  • Gun control in England increased crime by other weapons.
  • Knife violence inevitably increases when gun control takes away guns as self-defense.

Act II

Evidence/further objections here, please. I'd ask that the above remains as a reasonably coherent reference point. --Leda 15:07, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Why are you limiting this only to evidence? Surely logic is worthwhile also.--Aschlafly 15:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Agreed, but you're asking too much of statement logic when you try and present some of the assertions above as self-evident. As Philip said previously, you can't simply assert "x" as a function of gun control when there's no necessary (in its strongest sense) connection between the two. You need to advance a logical argument that contains a sufficient weight of evidence to convince people. For what it's worth, I'd abandon your first two assertions right now as I honestly don't see how you're going to get round OurMike's objection. --Leda 15:58, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
ASchlafly - when you make your frequent pronouncements that your arguments cannot be denied because of "logic" it is the same as you saying "It's obvious!". Now, what may be obvious to you may not be obvious to others, and more importantly such a blanket assertion is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Hence the well-established scientific tradition of presenting evidence for one's assertions. There is nothing more satisfying to the debater than to be able to provide plenty of well-documented evidence in public and use this to demolish your opponents arguments. All those who debate you will gladly accept your position, if and when you can provide evidence. Without evidence, you are like the fisherman with extended arms, proclaiming to the bar that "No really, it was THIS long!". So, no - your statement above that "Surely logic is worthwhile also" is NOT correct. Not unless you wish the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" to be considered as a nothing other than your own blog. StatsFan 16:18, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Statistically, in the UK, according to several chief constables across the country, most knife and gun crime occurs on the street, and not as the consequence of home invasions, as Mr Schlafly asserts. I personally feel perfectly safe in my own home, without a gun in my possession, whatever Mr Schlafly thinks, and certainly much safer than I would if we had legistlation similar to that in the US. In fact, I am pleased to say I have never seen a working gun in my life, and don't ever expect to Liberalnproud

as you should, but someone with a gun is safer. consider this, if you DO meet someone with a gun, and you have a gun in your house as well, then you will be able to threaten him with it and he would probably leave, (the U.S. is much more violent then Britain though)-Greenmeanie 22:29, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Can you prove outright the truth of your assertion 'someone with a gun is safer'? Statistics in the UK show that those who possess or carry weapons are in greater danger of attack than those who don't. And seriously now, what is the likelihood my home is going to be invaded by a burglar with a gun? Have you ever been the victim of a home invasion by a gun-toting thief?Liberalnproud

I'm also interested in the claim that if I met someone with a gun, I could threaten him with my own if I had one in the house. I can imagine some scenarios where that would be the case, but in most cases, if I met someone with a gun, it would be too late to get my own to threaten him with. Philip J. Rayment 09:54, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Possible breaking news: Police bar Christian evangelising in UK city

Police in the central England city of Birmingham accused two American missionaries of committing a "hate crime" for leafleting about their Birmingham-based church in a city suburb - because it has Moslem inhabitants. Bugler 17:40, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the link Bugler. The article has been posted. I decided to use the Telegraph link because the BBC link conveniently left out the part about the tirade against President Bush and the wars. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 18:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

And Australians decide they dont want a mosque in their traditionally Catholic suburb. It works both ways AdenJ 17:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

So - if true - that makes what happened in Brum OK? Bugler 19:26, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
"traditionally Catholic suburb"?
And you are comparing Christians in Britain being accused of a crime with residents (most of whom would not be active Christians, but agnostics, atheists, and nominal Christians) using legal process to oppose a Muslim school.
Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry Philip, but could you point out where you are getting the information for your claim that most of the residents are not acitve Christians? Also to AdenJ, where are you getting your claim that is traditionally Catholic? Neither are mentioned in the article, so if either of you could cite your claims, that would be appreciated. As the comparisan; I'd say that the stuff being done to fight the school (whether by Christians or non-Christians) is just as bad as arresting Christians for preaching. ZTak 15:42, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I did not say that most of the resident "are not" active Christians, but "would not be" active Christians. I say this on the basis that only about 5% of Australians are active Christians. It's true that this figure will vary from place to place, but I would not expect almost any town in Australia to have a figure higher than, say, 10%. Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you. ZTak 23:17, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Good news: British Christians are to challenge this offensive attempt to deny their rights to free expression by bearing witness in Birmingham. Bugler 06:50, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Abortion in Ectopic Pregnancy

Yes... so because of this one miraculous case where the mother survived an ectopic pregnancy, all mothers with it should risk having their ovaries or fallopian tube ruptured by continuing the pregnancy? Is there a more blatant case of using anecdotal evidence than this? (By contrast, there are cases of spontaneous remissions in terminal cancer patients - where patients forgo all treatments to improve the quality of their remaining terms. Does this mean not treating cancer should be the normal practice, because of these few cases?) ATang 12:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Most people are told that ectopic pregnancies are guaranteed failures that will kill the mother. Evidently that is not always true.--Aschlafly 14:24, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
From the liberal logic article: "6. belief that a correlation and/or causation (e.g., between atheism and suicide) can be disproved by a counterexample (e.g., one atheist who remained sane)". Or, if you would prefer a slight paraphrase: "belief that a correlation and/or causation (e.g., between ectopic pregnancy and serious harm to the mother and/or fetus) can be disproved by a counterexample (e.g., one mother who successfully carried an ectopic pregnancy to term)". Mr. Schlafly, your statement that "Most people are told that ectopic pregnancies are guaranteed failures..." doesn't even match the "one in a million" assertion of the headline and original article. A probability of 0.000001 is small but nevertheless much greater than 0. You, sir, are guilty of what you refer to as "Liberal Logic." And with that, ban away if it'll make you feel better. -Drek


This make we Asian Americans very extra angry at this website. you should make it better. I have little english so i cant—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katsu (talk)

We will do our best :) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 20:51, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow yeah great job on Asia... Why do both the maps cut off the Middle East? Rockthecasbah 21:13, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Two of the above do not yet understand the purpose of a wiki. It's to contribute, not to talk, talk, talk and whine, whine, whine.--Aschlafly 21:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

~Rockthecasbah cannot upload pictures. He does not have the privileges. If you would grant him that privilege maybe he could work. SugarCup 00:26, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow Aschlafly. Maybe you want to look at my contributions sometime. I am probably about 50/50, let alone 90/10! Rockthecasbah 21:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Atheist creates video game with goal to wipe out Abrahamic religions

The object of the game is to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam by murdering Abraham and the authors of the Bible, before beheading Muhammad.

Nice. The false rumors about "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" pale in comparison. Jinxmchue 10:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Why is this on the main page? The game isn't made by a major game studio (it's made by a single grad student) and it hasn't even been released. Also, why are you implying that the two stories about video games are related?JPohl 12:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe they editors have a persecution complex? In any event, all you'd need to do is kill Moses before he comes down off Mt. Sinai... Dnotice 13:05, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I guarantee that further comments like that will show your real intentions for being here. Jinxmchue 14:01, 4 June 2008 (EDT)'
Sounds like a challenge.... Dnotice 15:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
"Eternal Forces" wasn't made by a major game studio and hadn't been released yet when it started receiving criticism. Why should this game be excluded from the same treatment? In any case, it's yet another excellent example of the mindset of the new atheists. Jinxmchue 14:01, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't twist his words against him. There's a major difference between ANY game studio and a single grad student (except for, I suppose, a few theoretical grad students who like to consider themselves studios). This is intentionally controversial and attention-grabbing act by a single person, most likely shown to the news station because they're inherently hungry for controversy and attention-grabbing things.
If you really want to, we can compare this effort by a single, anonymous troublemaker with that of the team behind Eternal Forces:

After you take out film production and miscellaneous things like quality assurance, there were still two substantial groups in the US and Ukraine that worked on the game. Not as many people as you'd see in one of the games from one of the major developers, but certainly more than most independent studios.

Compared to Left Behind, this insubstantial idea of a project with an anonymous creator is essentially a nonevent. You'd find more effort in - and more media attention given to - flash games where you spank George W. Bush or shoot illegal immigrants as they cross the border. Wandering 14:55, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
It's no less notable than that game made about the Virginia Tech shootings. Jinxmchue 13:16, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Which, oddly enough, implies a claim I never made. Of course, I will make that claim now, since the game you bring up has a name - V-Tech Massacre - and we can use the proven method of Google search for notability to find 114k hits about a game which the creator uploaded to an extremely popular flash game site and asked a ransom for the removal of it, thereby generating waves of controversy.
Let's compare some of the keywords that could lead us to web pages about this unfinished, unnamed, perhaps even unstarted game: WSLS-10 atheist - 70 hits, WSLS 10 atheist - 506 hits, "general atheist premise" - 10 hits (60 with Google results expanded), "sort of nipping the problem in the bud" - 40 hits. Most of those return unrelated hits as well. So unless you can find some Google search that turns up at least, say, 10k pages that are specifically about this game - yeah, I'd say this is less notable than V-Tech Massacre. By a bit! Wandering 13:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to such conclusions. This game hasn't been released yet. Jinxmchue 12:38, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
When, or perhaps if, this game comes out, and when/if it attracts any notable attention, I fully invite you to respond with the same comments you made when you had absolutely no context. Wandering 13:37, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Canadian Trial

A pretty ridiculous trial is still grinding on in Canada, being heard by the Human Rights Tribunal. This is a good article about why it is an absurd trial, and maybe meritorious of the front page blog.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:50, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

No one nothing? A trial without evidence, where mere claim of injury is sufficient to invoke penalties and censorship, and no one is interested?
Sheesh. The one time my values and CP's values line up...:) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:18, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Dinner Event

Couldn't make this date myself, but I hope it's come together as planned. Are the first recipient(s) of the Conservapedia Award going to be announced in advance, or afterwards? --DinsdaleP 10:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

It is indeed proceeding as planned, and the excitement is building. A decision on a Conservapedia award has not yet been made, as you can see from Essay:Conservapedia award, and we just have to hold a second event for that purpose. Sorry you won't be able to make it this one.--Aschlafly 10:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Great. I look forward to meeting other NYC-area Conservapedians in person at some point. --DinsdaleP 10:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

"Hearing six talks"? There's a better way to say that, I'm sure. "We endured six presentations," would be better. Also, it should be updated from tonight to last night.--Ṣ₮ёVeN 08:25, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Ha ha ha. Next time you can give a presentation and we'll then comment on that! (I'll update it to "last night" now.)--Aschlafly 09:03, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd be interested to hear what the talks were about (and I'm sure others would be too), if you could give us a few lines (here I mean, rather than front page). Thanks - Bugler 09:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for asking. The talks were on:
1. Legal work against abortion
2. Second Amendment (right of self-defense with guns)
3. vaccines (right of parental control, against mandatory vaccination)
4. the political process
5. marriage (against court-mandated same-sex marriage licenses)
6. how abortion increases breast cancer (by a breast cancer surgeon)--Aschlafly 09:12, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! It sounds like a stimulating as well as enjoyable evening. Bugler 09:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

It would be great if any of the speakers turned their notes into essays on CP for the benefit of the the folks who couldn't make it. --DinsdaleP 09:24, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Bugler, it was quite enjoyable. "Endured" was a joke; the presentations were uplifting.--Ṣ₮ёVeN 10:08, 6 June 2008 (EDT) But the phrase "six talks" still sounds awkward to me.

Student dies of cocaine overdose at professor's home,2933,363480,00.html

"A college student who collapsed at her professor's Phoenix home died of a cocaine overdose, an autopsy concluded."

Fine professor values at work once again. Jinxmchue 13:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Why does Conservapedia hate professors so much?JPohl 14:21, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
That's an odd reaction to that shocking story! JPohl, do you think people should just shrug their shoulders in reaction to that story and say, "accidents happen"?--Aschlafly 14:58, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't you think it's odd that stories like this keep popping up? It's not about hating professors, oh ye of the straw man argument. We don't hate professors. We hate the corruption of so many whom we entrust our children to. Professors are in the business of educating students, not having affairs with them, doing drugs with them, encouraging and helping them to destroy the 1st Amendment-protected displays of pro-lifers, forcing their captive audience of students to endure their diatribes against America, conservatives and Christianity, etc. Jinxmchue 15:10, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Excellent summary Jinxmchue! --DeanSformerly Crocoite 15:24, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I may be mistaken but I presumed JPohl was wondering why CP considered this story representative of professors generally in contrast to, say, a doctor who commits murder or a paedophile priest. In other words, is the "professor values" thing backed up by statistical evidence showing that professors generally are a bad bunch compared to other professionals? Or is CP citing this story in an attempt to damn the state education system? Ajkgordon 15:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Ajkgordon, your analogies fail because they have no connection with the value system of the profession. In professor values examples here, as the one today, the correlation with the value system is obvious. Indeed, it has long been explained in the entry (and denied, of course, by liberals).--Aschlafly 15:20, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Are you claiming that professor values are representative of professors? That's a really bold statement, and it would be nice to see a representative study that backed up your claims.JPohl 15:52, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Would you contribute thousands of dollars to fund such a study? I doubt it, and I doubt you know anyone who would. Moreover, those who reject logical analysis are not likely to accept the results of an unbiased study.--Aschlafly 16:46, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, Aschlafly, but I don't understand your reply to my post so I can't comment. Not that it's important - I was simply explaining what I presumed JPohl was asking. Ajkgordon 16:58, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
What don't you understand? I explained the error in your analogies. I don't know why you demand statistical evidence in the face of a logical argument. Surely you did not demand statistical evidence when you took math or logic courses in school. I doubt you demanded it even in politics courses.--Aschlafly 17:13, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I think you may be confusing me with someone else - I'm not demanding anything, simply clarifying what I though another poster meant.
The bit I don't understand is your explanation of the error in my analogies. I'm unclear as to how these stories about professors are any more representative of professors as a group than stories about police brutality or soldiers' torture or priest abuse are of their respective groups. Ajkgordon 17:19, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
You still seem to miss the point. If someone believing in environmental terrorism is found to have committed environmental terrorism, would you shrug your shoulders and ask for statistical evidence to correlate people who believe in environmental terrorism with acts of environmental terrorism? No, I don't think so. Likewise, professors who hold disdain for traditional morality are more likely to commit the crimes identified here than those who support traditional morality.--Aschlafly 17:38, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
There are people who have views against abortion that have killed doctors that perform abortions. You Mr. Schlafy have views against abortion. I could characterized murder as part of the values of those that have views against abortion and say it is only logical. But that would be wrong. It isn't even logical. MAnderson 17:59, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
No, that doesn't follow. First of all, nothing in pro-life doctrine advocates or defends what you say. Second of all, no such incidents have occurred in many years, and even then they were rarer than people murdering psychiatrists. Nothing rare about the crimes and deaths resulting from professor values.--Aschlafly 18:17, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Nothing in the job discription of professor advocates or defends what happened. The news article said that he has broken college rules and is being fired, so it obviously is not a part of the "professor doctrine" in universities if these rules exsist.
I am more worried about the fact you are using the tragic death of a promising young lady to defend your thesis which has less to do with Professor values and more to do with your own failed academic career. DanielB 22:40, 6 June 2008 (EDT)