Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Pavee

2008-03-16T23:24:16Z

AlephNull: New page: A pavee is a colloquial term for member of the travelling community in Ireland. They are famous for worshipping fairies along with the catholic saints. They have a rich and varied musical ...

A pavee is a colloquial term for member of the travelling community in Ireland. They are famous for worshipping fairies along with the catholic saints. They have a rich and varied musical culture though they are often seen drunk.

Talk:Chisel

2008-03-16T23:14:45Z

AlephNull:

=="formidable combination and a worthy tool."==
Isn't that just pure subjective (& bad) poetry [[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:14, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Chisel

2008-03-16T23:14:27Z

AlephNull: New page: =="formidable combination and a worthy tool."== Isn't that just pure subjective (& bad) poetry

=="formidable combination and a worthy tool."==
Isn't that just pure subjective (& bad) poetry

Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?

2008-03-16T23:07:44Z

AlephNull:

Today's ''New York Times'' carries an article—free registration may be required to read it online—entitled
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin].

:"For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.... [but others argue] that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances."

One of the evolution-supports-conservatism voices is a professor Larry Arnhart, who

:in his 2005 book, “Darwinian Conservatism,” tackled the issue of conservatism’s compatibility with evolutionary theory head on, saying Darwinists and conservatives share a similar view of human beings: they are imperfect; they have organized in male-dominated hierarchies; they have a natural instinct for accumulation and power; and their moral thought has evolved over time,

while a John G. West has written a 2006 book entitled “Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest.”

(I personally think that the descent-with-modification part of evolution is as close to a fact as facts ever get—when dealing with phenomena that are too big to perform experiments on and occur over periods much longer than a human lifetime. I think that scientists are not even close to understanding the sources of variation, that it is not at all clear that variation is "random" or, if nonrandom, what could be guiding it. And I don't think evolution fits neatly into either conservative or liberal ideology.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

The obvious answer is: neither. But I guess it's a minority opinion here. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism but the name, but it clearly fits better with a capitalistic (conservative?) view of society. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 11:07, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Neither, of course, science is neutral towards politics and religion.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

A third vote for the obvious "neither". Science is neutral with regards to everything except the evidence. Politics and religion, however, are not always neutral regarding science. Sometimes they assist in the work of science, sometimes they hinder it. If your religion or politics compels you to reject some part of science, it's not the science that's biased. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:41, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

=== Is Gravity Liberal or is it Conservative? ===

Despite what the Daily Show says, not EVERY fact has a political agenda. And anyone trying to take moral lessons from nature is advised to study wasps and parasites, and decide if that's REALLY what they want to be basing their morality on. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps[gasp!} it is merely an interpretation of the evidence. [[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:07, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2008-03-16T23:03:24Z

AlephNull:

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror. Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse). Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and nowadays. We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding. And that stuff was never needed, anyway. Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes. Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Is this a joke? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes". Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him. How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Transference==
This is not even relevant for argument. Christian values are inapplicable with coercive interrogation. As unrelated to Christian values as using a bayonet on someone or flying a civilian airliner into a building full of civilians. What is being attempted here is just another attempt to attribute coercive interrogation with Christian values. Maybe we can give the Christian value attribute to ritualized decapitation, mutalization, use of human shields (non-combatants). But tell me honestly, which values did you use when someone came to murder you and your family because their leaders ordered them too? Of course there weren't any exept the value of your life over your would be killers. It is only those that hold a hatred for Christianity who will use a war that someone else is waging to devalue it. It is absolutely just another way to make political rants about two things that someone has absolutely no knowledge about. This propaganda technique is known as TRANSFER (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938). This technique of trying to attribute something negative to an apposing religious view is only too common in the religion debate category and usually with all of the usual suspects.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:09, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I do not see anyone arguing "Christian values support torture" or even "Christians torture".... seems to me that the question under discussion is "''ought'' Christians support torture" -- and the answer immediately presents itself, '''''Thou shalt not!!''''' for "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.... it is better that we should allow ourselves to be the recipients of torture than to inflict it upon another, better that we should allow ourselves to be murdered than murder another.... for the torture of another is a sin that will not be washed off our hands, and those that condone it, in their hearts, words, or acts, are as guilty and as condemned as those who beat, burn, and humiliate, no matter the "value" of the information sought!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::The debate question is whether coercive interrogation is consistent with a certain ideology. Meaning are the two compatible with each other? Nothing about torture is being mentioned here, by the way. Let's not misdirect on the topic of discussion. Also that Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with the application of coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war is only proving one of my points perfectly. Make sure that your not wanting to sin isn't an act of sedition that causes others to suffer for it. I hope you'll see the value of this information and to apply it accordingly.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:41, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What you call "coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war" are nonetheless "coercive interrogation techniques" (and if we are not talking about torture, then what do we mean?).... if someone were to demand that you renounce your faith and blaspheme against the name of God, and threatened to kill your entire family if you refused to do so, what would you do? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::I would've declared a war against terror on them. Oh, darn it, someone already beat me too it. I hate it when I have to make the same point over and over again. Look up 'coercive interrogation techniques' so that you will be able to tell the difference between coercion and torture. Also the differences between military combatants and religious marterdym would also be something to make a distinction between. Historically we haven't reach the point where we don't have to learn war no more.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: You're presuming guilt, Capercorn, and the only reason anyone is even pretending it's a legitimate argument is because noone has any idea what detainees' legal status actually is. If they're criminals, then they must be presumed innocent and be given due process (a fair and public trial) - this means no 'coercive interrogation'. If they're prisoners of war, they have to be treated in accord with the Geneva convention - again, no 'coercive interrogation'. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. And to return to the original topic, Jesus said to turn the other cheek - or perhaps it's just that part of the Bible which isn't meant literally?[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
==Rebuttal to RobS==
Disinformation? The CIA admit do doing it. In a similar manner they violated Italy's soverignity by kidnapping an Imam instead of extradition being requested.[[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2008-03-16T23:01:56Z

AlephNull:

EU Constitution

2008-03-16T22:56:02Z

AlephNull:

{{stub}}

The EU Constitution was written to amalgamate and simplify various EU treaties and amongst other provisions, appoint an EU president. Tony Blair was informally nominated for this post,despite domestic unpopularity .The treaty was criticised for being so opaque that specialist laywers were required to understand it The treaty was defeated in referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005. A newer version called the Lisbon treaty is currently being prepared.

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

Talk:EU Constitution

2008-03-16T22:53:52Z

AlephNull: New page: Just a stub ~~~~

Just a stub [[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

EU Constitution

2008-03-16T22:53:04Z

AlephNull: New page: {{stub}} The EU Constitution was written to amalgamate and simplify various EU treaties and amongst other provisions, appoint an EU president. Tony Blair was informally nominated for this...