And disastrously so, I might add. Some kind historian, please fix! Human 02:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, is it wise to list examples of people pointing out Conservapedia's (percieved) flaws? Additionally, links 2, 3, and 4 are broken because they have been deleted. Lastly, why is this protected? HelpJazz 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)
- First, It is appropriate to list examples of Conservapedia editors using the Parthian shot; Second, the links are fixed; Third, the article is now unprotected. --Crocoite 00:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- Maybe we should ask Ed Poor about the appropriateness of the examples:
- "Ed Poor doesn't know the first thing about Meteorology or Atmospheric Science. I suggest he go back and start from the basics; Lesson 1) Those white things in the sky? They're called clouds. Can you say clouds?"
- If someone had said that about me I would want it deleted, not put on display. The same goes for Graham's "shot". I can maybe (and that's a big maybe) understand keeping deragatory remarks about Conservapedia, but keeping personal insults?
- I think we should get rid of all of the examples, lest this page become a focus point for anyone who wants to find out what others think are wrong with Conservapedia.
- Thanks for fixing the links and unprotecting. HelpJazz 14:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- Maybe we should ask Ed Poor about the appropriateness of the examples:
First of all, I would like to renew my plea from above. I really think that the examples do nothing but harm Conservapedia and certain sysops.
And now, at the risk of being blocked, wasn't it the Parthion shooters on this page who did the "swift-boating" (of themselves) and not the CP sysops? Additionally, I think the shooters would make the case that they were doing a form of "coservative swift-boating" of Conservapedia. HelpJazz 18:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)
The irony on the list of 'parthian shots' done on conservapedia is that it seems when you read them, the liberal comes out on top with the smarter argument.
- It may well seem so to Liberals, with whom the characteristic of denial is very strong. Bugler 17:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Exactly my point.
My Parthian Shot
Hello, contributors of Conservapedia. I have been here for some time now, observing the various arguments for your worldview and reading your articles. I scantly contributed, instead preferring to be a follower. However, the seeds of doubt were sewn in my mind, and I do not believe that I can continue to be an active user here without complaint. I have decided to move on to better climes. And before I go, this is my Parthian shot. It is my hope that you read this in its entirety and learn from it.
I have read many an article here, and I am sorry to say that many have left me with just as many questions as answers. I asked questions, whether in the articles' talk pages or my own, but they have all been deleted without answer, as though the current leadership is unable to answer them. So I began to search for the answers myself. My questions have taken me to many a website, with a wide range of political and religious views, from AnswersinGenesis to the infamous Wikipedia.
In light of the answers I've found, I have slid from a KJV reading Baptist to an Agnostic. Many of the questions I've asked ('Why doesn't God just destroy Satan now, instead of allowing him to corrupt more people', for example) have no adequate answer from the Christian side, yet many a sensible answer from atheists. It doesn't help that many of your articles seem to misrepresent the state of science (Your article on evolution, for example).
And then there are politics. Gentlemen, 'liberal' and 'evil' are not the same word, by any stretch of the imagination. No one is purely evil or purely good in this world. Instead, there are many shades of gray. Many of your articles are little more than slander against anyone who isn't conservative. Slander is not a valid argument (Barack Obama has his very many faults, but it's a pretty well known fact that he is not a Muslim). And every conservative politician isn't exactly sunshine and daisies, either. There have been plenty of scandals on both sides of the coin.
To sum up: I found many of your arguments flawed. When I questioned those arguments, my queries were deleted, meaning you are unwilling or unable to answer them (I expect this to be deleted as well, as you all seem to rely on censorship to keep your ideas intact, but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong, that'd be a pleasant surprise). The answers I've found from other, more reliable sources do not align with the answers here. Do what you will with my account, I will no longer be needing it. I hope you've learned a thing or two from this Parthian Shot, and may you all live happy and pleasant lives. Goodbye. --Bdor24 20:43, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
- At least you posted your Parthian Shot on its talk page! Thank you!
- As to your question, "Why doesn't God just destroy Satan now, instead of allowing him to corrupt more people?" the answer is simple: man is created in the image of God. If God were to destroy Satan, then that would require ending free will, and then this world ceases to be of interest. It would become akin to a sports league where one's favorite team won every game. That's no sports league at all.--Andy Schlafly 21:09, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
- You just deleted my response for no apparent reason without warning. THIS is the sort of thing I was pointing out before. Your entire worldview relies on censorship to be perceived as accurate. But Andy, no matter how many times you delete an answer, you can never delete the point it makes. If God loved us, then He would end the suffering right now, thus allowing far more people to escape the horrors of hell, free will or no. Also, a conceivably omnipotent being would no doubt be able to find a way to have free will WITHOUT evil. Omnipotent beings have no restrictions, even in the laws of physics and philosophy. Yet another hole in your argument. In all honesty, Andy, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually believe what you say. This is the kind of thing a parodist or Internet troll would say, a weak argument that overall undermines the cause they claim to support. Parodist or not, that argument was ridiculously weak, and if that's the best the theists can do, then the atheists are probably right. As I said above, good bye and live a happy and pleasant life. --Bdor24 18:21, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
- I went over the prior edits and could not find anything I deleted. If it happened, it was an accident.
- What's your "yes" or "no" answer to this: Would you take away free will from everyone if you were God? As a matter of simple logic, suffering is inevitable if there is free will.--Andy Schlafly 22:10, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
- Destroying Satan wouldn't destroy humanity's ability to do evil, it would only destroy evil's greatest mascot. Evil would still be there, lurking in the shadows, but no one's giving you the temptation to use it. And if evil WERE connected to free will, then yes, I would destroy free will, because that mean's no one suffers in hell, and everyone goes to heaven, which a loving God would want, free will or no.
- And in turn, I ask you this, Andy. What is the point of free will? God wants everyone to worship him, but at the same time wants us to have the ability NOT to worship him, unintentionally dooming ourselves. And for what? God detests evil and doesn't want us to do it, so why does he allow us to? --Bdor24 15:58, 25 May 2012 (EDT)