Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Embraced deceit

2008-03-08T20:13:53Z

AmesG:

==Andy Conflating Terms==
If this is actually different than deceit, and if your liberal examples are all of embraced deceit, then maybe you should move them over here and admit that liberals don't uniquely practice deceit. As you've conceded, there are some [[Richard Nixon|conservative examples]] of deceit, right? In short, don't conflate the terms, and expect us to (1) ignore or (2) not notice it. Also, please don't take this as a waiver of my objection to "embraced deceit" being practiced only by liberals. But that's for another day.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: No, we won't be allowing the [[placement bias]] that you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:36, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Andy, I merely propose using your own terms in the manner that you suggest them. You yourself have said that your examples of deceit are in fact examples of "embraced deceit," which is a subset of run of the mill deceit. Why do you object to your own term being used?-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 15:13, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Kitzmiller

2008-03-08T19:33:44Z

AmesG: redirect

#REDIRECT[[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]]

Liberals and Academia

2008-03-08T19:33:15Z

AmesG: /* Shocking Behavior */

The phrase '''Professor values''' refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by [[atheism]], [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of [[liberal]] beliefs, [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]], anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.

In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref>

[[Liberal]] politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate. Examples include:

* [[Gary Hart]]
* [[Al Gore]]
* [[Bob Kerrey]]
* [[Michael Dukakis]]

There are about 3600 colleges, many small, and perhaps 500,000 professors. Yet there have been a relatively large number of shocking crimes and bizarre conduct.

== Shocking Murders and Crimes by Professors ==

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref>''Id.''</ref> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was gaoled for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* British history professor Felipe Fernandez-Armesto was incarcerated for jaywalking and defiance of police instructions in [[Atlanta]]. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6251431.stm</ref>

* A professor and colleague of [[Richard Dawkins]] is fined for breaching local conservation ordinances in Oxford.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4463470.stm</ref>

* Axe-wielding Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, polluted using ether to save paying safe disposal fees.<ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

== Shocking Behavior ==

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the [[liberal]] Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

*School board official [[Bill Buckingham]] perjured himself on the stand before a federal judge in the [[Kitzmiller]] case.
(add more examples)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Embraced deceit

2008-03-08T19:32:05Z

AmesG:

Talk:Embraced deceit

2008-03-08T19:28:53Z

AmesG:

If this is actually different than deceit, and if your liberal examples are all of embraced deceit, then maybe you should move them over here and admit that liberals don't uniquely practice deceit. As you've conceded, there are some [[Richard Nixon|conservative examples]] of deceit, right? In short, don't conflate the terms, and expect us to (1) ignore or (2) not notice it.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Embraced deceit

2008-03-08T19:28:28Z

AmesG: New page: If this is actually different than deceit, and if your liberal examples are all of embraced deceit, then maybe you should move them over here and admit that liberals don't uniquely practic...

If this is actually different than deceit, and if your liberal examples are all of embraced deceit, then maybe you should move them over here and admit that liberals don't uniquely practice deceit. As you've conceded, there are some [[Richard Nixon|conservative examples]] of deceit, right?-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Deceit

2008-03-08T19:08:45Z

AmesG: /* Enron... Nixon... */

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)
==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Category talk:Liberals

2008-03-08T18:59:10Z

AmesG: New page: I propose a new page, called Liberal generalizations. The content should go something like this: {{cquote|Liberals tend to make gross over-generalizations of their ideolog...

I propose a new page, called [[Liberal generalizations]]. The content should go something like this:
{{cquote|[[Liberal|Liberals]] tend to make gross over-generalizations of their ideological opponents, attributing grossly unfavorable qualities to them and demonizing conservatives as incapable of feeling [[liberal friendship|friendship]]. On the contrary, there is no known example of conservatives over-generalizing and demonizing liberals.}}
Tell me what you think.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T18:55:46Z

AmesG: /* Interesting list of risk factors... */

Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.[[User:Elrond|Elrond]] May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. ''However, most studies show that they are not.'' That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Read [[abortion]] without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So it's not about the research then? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here [http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481]: "''Although the increase in risk was relatively low,'' (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT) OF course, there's this: [http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/1/1/21][[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.[[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... ==

No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it ''does'' occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince ''men'' to perform regular breast self-examination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Risk factors ==

I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see [[oncologist]]).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the [[author]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article:
# ↑ http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
# ↑ http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
# ↑ Id.
# ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
# ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
# ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
# ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
# ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
# ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
# ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
# ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm
[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:
#NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
#British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
#Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
#British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
#International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
#European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
#Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
#Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
#International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
#International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
#British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
#International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
#Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
#American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
#British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
#Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
#International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking ==

I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf]
[http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/mdeaths.htm#direct deaths]. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Support==
''copied from PALMD's [[User_talk:Palmd001|talk]] page''

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further.
Peter you have my full support. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== NEJM studies ==

I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/25/1834] and [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Danger/Boycott==
Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be '''medically unrelated'''. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
==Breast Feeding==
According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk. Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== I'm back ==

Sorry to pester (OK, not really)...I have no interest in changing CPs anti-abortion position. But if you want to have an article that is truly informative about breast cancer, you may wish to limit the information to that which has been scientifically proven. For instance, the role of breast self-exam is no longer clear, and that of mammograms is complicated. The role of abortion is however well-known, in that there has never been a proven connection between breast cancer risk and abortion. Also, if there were, it would additionally need to be proved that avoiding abortion reduces breast cancer risk. The data aren't there. The fight against abortion is elsewhere and should not be fought by misinforming people about another health topic.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD" (specialty not in breast cancer), you only continue to prove [[liberal denial]]. See its point #14. Cheers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::I forgot that you do specialize in breast cancer...my mistake.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::Oh, and being an expert in human medicine certainly qualifies me better than anyone else at this site to comment. And inventing a new "liberal" rule every time you realize you are wrong doesn't help make your point. Godspeed. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:49, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::::What I saw in the past few edits was Fox unblocking you because it was a simple case of kindness on his part, and you insist on throwing your weight around. PalMD, it is not a right for you to be here; it is a priviledge, and right now you're not doing too well after just three edits. Don't let there be a bad fourth edit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::::When one has studied medicine for decades as Palmd001 has, I think he's entitled to "throw his weight around," and your assertion that he's not is mere pejorative, because you don't have a legitimate, logical, non-''ad hominem'' rejoinder :-). Plus, it strikes me that threats like this are inimical to the search for truth. See [[marketplace of ideas]].-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 11:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::: "PalMD", your claim of "being an expert in 'human medicine' certainly qualifies [you] better than anyone else at this site to comment" is a comical absurdity. No one is a general expert in "human medicine" and you're not fooling anyone here. I deal with physicians every day, including other physicians on this site, and I have never seen such an unjustified claim of expertise before. Don't pretend to be an expert beyond what you may know, and don't engage in [[liberal denial]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

I have to admit that what I love about this place is that you and Karajou feel free to display your ignorace for all to see. Despite your dealings with [[AAPS]], you are not a medical expert, and obviously know nothing about the field. What is your medical specialty that gives you all the breast cancer knowledge that an internist and medical professor misses? Ever read [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence|Orac]? He is an expert. Good stuff. My knowledge of the law is equally vague. I don't know a writ from a whit. You don't know an internist from an intern. Nothing wrong with that. But it's ok, your [[User:Karajou|enforcer]] will clean up your inconsistencies.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:47, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD", you're clueless. Try claiming to be an "expert in 'human medicine'" in a court of law sometime. Five minutes later, which is how long it will take for everyone to stop laughing at your claim, maybe you'll wake up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Let me just clarify for myself. You are an attorney who "talks to doctors". I am a practicing internist (yes, expert in human medicine), a professor of medicine, and an instructor of other physiscians. The "other doctors" here are? Anyway, I don't see how you have any qualifications in this area, and I ''know'' that I do. Patients come to me for just that. Sure, I don't dose chemotherapy, or administer radiation therapy, but believe it or not internists, especially academic internists have to know about this stuff and be able to research it. Anyway, God bless.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:04, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::May I add that it's insulting to a doctor to claim that he has no experience in the area, when you know very little other than anecdotal evidence of the same.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 10:58, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Interesting list of risk factors... ==

I note that all the risk factors listed have a source quoted, except one. If it is indeed the case that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" surely owes its readers a reliable source for this. Without a source I'm afraid I am driven to agree with the experts and the available medical evidence, and to continue in my mistaken (and apparently "liberal") belief that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Please enlighten me and show me how I am wrong. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:07, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Well, it ''has'' been demonstrated that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, so... if you are pregnant, technically speaking an abortion ''does'' in fact raise your relative risk. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:21, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::I guess what we're looking at then is [[placement bias]]: it's not actually a risk of ''abortion'', it's a risk of ''not having children!'' How odd that someone would deliberately confound the two, though.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 13:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Marketplace of ideas

2008-03-08T16:43:52Z

AmesG:

Hint hint.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 17:03, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Your footnotes are great, but you should have quotes attached. The ''Abrams'' dissent is killer.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 11:43, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T16:42:13Z

AmesG: /* I'm back */

Kelo v. City of New London

2008-03-08T16:06:02Z

AmesG: improved

{{caselaw|Kelo v. City of New London|___ U.S. ___|2005}}

''Kelo v. City of New London'' (2005) was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld a taking by government of private property (someone's home) in order to give the property to a private corporation. This decision federalized the recent state expansion of the concept of [[eminent domain]] from the limitation of "public use" (e.g., build a new courthouse or highway) to a much broader "public purpose" (e.g., obtain more tax revenue from a new business).

This decision opened the floodgates to any town that wants to increase tax revenues by taking people's homes and giving the property to big corporations that will pay increased taxes to the town. While the town has to pay "just compensation" for the property taken, that amount is rarely what the homeowner feels would be fair.

States can prevent this outcome by amending their constitutions, as [[Michigan]] and many other states have done.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Talk:Breast cancer

2008-03-08T15:58:24Z

AmesG: /* I'm back */

Just to inform the person, which put this study about breast cancer caused by abortion in there. In any study I read about it, there is not a single bit of evidence for that. As Christians we might be free to believe whatever, but we should not believe in something dogmatic, especially when the evidence that this one study by Christian conservative researchers secreted is just faked reality, since this study apperently got tested lately and disproven, in order to support exactly these dogmatism. It is one thing to believe in Jesus and the trinity, but it is blasphemious and just morally incorrect to use the Lord in order to save a personal paradigm. That is one reason why a lot of Christians in the world are pointing to the US and state, Lord, please forgive them, since they do not know how much evil they bring upon us with that behavior.

PalMD, I'm not going to allow concealment here of how abortion increases risk of breast cancer. That's not fair to the women who are victims, and it is not truthful either. Your citations to organizations are not scientific and you omit the compelling logic and overwhelming evidence of an increased risk. See the discussion in [[abortion]].

I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.[[User:Elrond|Elrond]] May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.

Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, please call me Pete. Anyway, if you wish to question my credentials and back up your assertions with better citations than I have, then just do it. Add it to the discussion, and lets see if we can squeeze it into the article if it is truly convincing. Dont just lock then ask later. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, what if I were to write that mammograms give so much radiation that they are a significant risk factor for cancer. I have no ''credible'' sources to back this up, and it takes away from the overall legitimacy of the article. There are '''many''' good reasons to halt abortions, but this isnt one of them.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: PalMD, I'm not going to waste hours debating this with you, any more than I would debate whether 2+2=5 with you. The content page is not going to mislead women as abortion supporters have. Go to Wikipedia if you prefer citing liberal organizations rather than disclosing the logic and honest research. Here, we are going to tell women the truth and efforts to interfere with that will result in locking and blocking. This will probably be my last comment here on this and you can have the last word here. But the content page is going to disclose the logic, the honest studies, and the truth about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, in the interest of fairness you should probably include the studies contrary to your views. As you say, this isn't Wikipedia, you don't censor for PoV. I don't think PalMD would question your legal reasoning - will you question his medical knowledge?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure what "liberal" sources you refer to. The CDC? WHO? NEJM? NIH? Im sorry, Andy, but you do not seem to have respect for either truth or experts. You have an agenda, and are willing to run rough-shod over important facts to get there. Save the abortion debate for where it belongs. Im more with you on that than you think. When you say that your truth is obvious,etc, that usually means you believe it and thats good enough.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you're absolutely right that we should be looking at the research, but you seem to not be aware of all of it. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points at the end of the abortion talk page. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, if you can give me an actual '''NNH (number needed to harm, that is number of women who would have to get an abortion to cause one extra case of breast cancer), or odds ratio, or risk ratio''' from a good study of abortion and breast cancer, we can cite it and discuss it. If you have the raw data, I can show you how to calculate these. Otherwise, it has no medical bearing.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Bias - Original work]]

:Why is Mastectomy not mentioned in this article? --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::Haven't finished yet...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, ok. I sorta thought we should probably finish the article and include important stuff like treatments, mastectomy, and the like before we discuss abortion and whether or not it causes breast cancer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Andy, if you can give me the stats about abortions and breast cancer, I can run them through SPSS and give you some graphs and correlation data and the like.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who has a financial horse in this race? ==
Quote: ''I'm not going to allow concealment here...'' Aschlafly, above.

*http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/050328/index.htm
*http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortionattorney.html
*http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

And for full disclosure, I do not perform abortions or in any way profit from them. Should I go on?????? Censor away!!!--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Awesome. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Goodness me - what was that I said about reports from people with no financial axe to grind?! [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 16:21 10 April 2007

Blimey! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! No, Conservapedia doesn't censor. (To be clear -- in reference to Andy's blocking of Pete.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to ruin these liberals' fun here, but there's no money in standing up for the truth. I've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, and don't expect to either. In contrast, there's over a billion dollars and much political power gained from concealing the harm to women.

: I think PalMD is overusing his "MD" to conceal the truth from women, and I'm not going to allow that here. I'm concerned about the Essjay issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you've never earned a dime from the abortion-breast cancer link, that may well be because on the evidence (and I've read both sides of it) it doesn't look as if it would stand up in court. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 17:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::And I think you're overusing your little bit of power (in a place where most visitors, fortunately, won't fall for it, or did long ago) to provide ideologically based misinformation to women who desperately need good information in order to hold up the shaky foundations of your ego. Which, ultimately, is just sad and tragic. (Oh, and you should have someone proofread those links above -- lots of non-spell checkable typos, like 'and' instead of 'an'.) [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 17:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

em.. Essjay was a fraud, PalMD has provided both his real name and contact details - there seems to be no connection between the two. Since PalMD has been kind enough to provide us with details of his medical expertise - could you do the same? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't claim to have special expertise in this area. The Essjay fraud consists of someone who claims expertise beyond what is justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::wow, I've seen people blocked for less. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT) (My comment was removed, again, from a talk page so I am restoring it.)

:::I hate to cast doubt upon anyone, but Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is correct in this matter. I have other reasons than he has given for doubts but have not voiced these so for. I would find a phone call from Peter's office very convincing at this point. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ed, Peter has provided his proof it is on his talk page. I double checked him and his claims about who he is are true--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are going to slander a man - best to come right out and say it Ed - are you saying his creditionals are fake or not? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't claim to have special expertise in the medical aspect of this, but it's actually a question of statistics. There are some studies that show that women who've had an abortion are at higher risk for breast cancer. ''However, most studies show that they are not.'' That's the bottom line. Saying otherwise, when proof has been repeatedly given, is misleading. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Murray, you're wrong about the studies, but you won't get blocked for being wrong. But someone who pretends to have expertise about something should be blocked when he is posting incorrect statements under the pretense of expertise. We are not going to allow a repeat of anything like the Essjay incident here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, it's the conflict of interest I think the papers are going to be more interested in - I've already seen on another forum, that a english newspaper is interested in this. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:How am I wrong about the studies Andy? You've mentioned that there are 16 that show a significant risk. I've listed (on my talk page) 24 that show there isn't. Perhaps you could clarify? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see where Andy has better credentials than anyone else to speak on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but he just keeps referring to the "essjay" thing which has nothign to do with this discussion. Can we move on and talk about credentials or forget the whole mess? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to the article - WHICH studies show a link between abortion and breast cancer? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Read [[abortion]] without any preconceived opinions. Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So it's not about the research then? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" is not a very good answer. sorry. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"logic alone" suggests that the sun goes round the earth - because after all it looks as if we're standing still and the sun goes round us, doesn't it? But evidence suggests otherwise. At least, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court does. [[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Looking here [http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481]: "''Although the increase in risk was relatively low,'' (emphasis added) the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." That's in the abstract. I don't have access to the article. I'm a little suspicous, however. Most studies would give some sort of correlation, and not an "odds ratio", whatever that means. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:25, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Whoops--that is the article... Hmmm...[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT) OF course, there's this: [http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/1/1/21][[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT) Judging from the NE Journal of Medicine articles at the bottom of the ref 1, it seems that this is unclear. Hence, it would be intellectually dishonest to include it in the article. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion became legal in the UK in 1967 - I'm not sure when in the US (1972?) so women old enough to have abortions then would now be around sixty or older - a time when age-related factors increase the rate anyway. However, it's not as simple as that. For example, among other things the rate of obesity is now much higher than it was forty years ago, and that is an influencing factor.[[User: Britinme|Britinme]] 18:36 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Breast cancer occurs 100 times more frequently in women than in men... but... ==

No time to work on this myself right now, but... I know a man who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and he tells me that when it ''does'' occur in men it is apt to be very dangerous. He's getting regular radiation therapy now, and things seem to be going OK, but it's a very serious business. And men often miss or ignore the symptoms because they don't know it can occur in men. He says he's on a mission to convince ''men'' to perform regular breast self-examination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely correct. Because it's so uncommon in men it doesn't usually get caught until it's fairly advanced, so prognoses are often not as good as they are for women. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:26, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Risk factors ==

I just got off the phone with PalMD and am now convinced that he is a real human being. I don't think he's a cancer expert (see [[oncologist]]).

I'm hoping he'll ease off and allow a few links to sources which contradict his view of the abortion-cancer connection to be inserted into the article, and that he will not try to "own" the article. He merely submitted a few edits; he's not the [[author]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

You are correct, I am not an oncologist, and have never claimed to be. I am still, as an internist, the closest thing we have to an expert here. I lecture on these topics regularly. I have no problem at all with injecting the abortion thing in here, however, just like any other info, it must be sourced, and the data should be available for anyone to view.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, perhaps an interested, intelligent person could post on the talk page the article links on abortion/breast cancer. I find it a little confusing on the abortion page. That way we could more easily and accurately incorporate it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

These are the ones used in the abortion article:
# ↑ http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
# ↑ http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
# ↑ Id.
# ↑ Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).
# ↑ "Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).
# ↑ R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).
# ↑ A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).
# ↑ N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).
# ↑ Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).
# ↑ Joel Brind, "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [1] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).
# ↑ http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm
[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:12 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. As a public service, I will parse each one individually, and add comments under each listing, if you dont mind.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you seem to have been blocked Peter, but if you do come back here is a list of studies that have found abortion not to be a risk factor:
#NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
#British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
#Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
#British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
#International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
#European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
#Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
#Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
#American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
#International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
#Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
#International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
#British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
#International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
#Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
#American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
#British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
#Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
#Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
#International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Your posting above is false and misleading. The Lancet entry, for example, is not a study at all. I doubt many of the others are either. Virtually all statistically significant studies have shown an increase risked, as does logic. The increased risk was shown before abortion became politically controversial and before the abortion industry became so powerful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The Lancet article is indeed a study, though it is regarding ovarian cancer, not breast. My mistake. But you don't understand what statistical significance means. The majority of studies (ie, those in my list) were not statistically significant, meaning they found no effect of abortion on breast cancer. That doesn't mean they don't count. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking ==

I blocked AmesG for a day for making an edit I considered threatening, and for not retracting it or apologizing for it.

When "PalMD" is editing outside his area of expertise, then I suggest he remove his "MD" label (which is not his real user id here anyway). My review of PalMD's past edits show a vast number of unproductive changes, including reverting one of my factual edits within a short period after my making it. I think a review of PalMD's edits does support blocking, but in an abundance of caution I will await his future edits. Any edit that falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion, particularly if made under the misleading moniker "MD", will likely result in a block of PalMD. Conservapedia is not going to allow the spreading of liberal falsehoods here to promote abortion. Go to Wikipedia if you want that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just plainly listing abortion as a risk factor is false because it suggests that a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk than a woman who was never pregnant. That is simply not true, and it is plain in the research. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Your comparison is badly misleading, and scientific nonsense. A woman who is pregnant is not choosing between an abortion and not being pregnant. She is choosing between an abortion and childbirth, and it is indisputed that choosing abortion is harmful to her health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please would you define your understanding of 'falsely denies that carrying a pregnancy to term is healthier for the mother than having an abortion'? As far as I can ascertain, the reverse is the truth. According to [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html]maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions in the developed world are of the order of 0.2-1.2 per 100,000, whereas in the USA maternal deaths associated with giving birth were 17 per 100,000 (12.2 in the UK) [http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf]
[http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/mdeaths.htm#direct deaths]. The conservative view is of opposition to abortion, and conservatives have many reasons to oppose it, but it does this site and your argument no favors if you misrepresent the facts. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:48 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The above data are silly and misleading, even if true. The above risks are far too small to be worth considering, and are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of breast cancer and premature birth of future children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You're missing the point entirely Andy. There's a difference between pregancy decreasing the risk and abortion increasing it. If you phrase it that way well and good, but that's not what you're doing. And you still haven't addressed the issue that the majority of studies find no link between abortion and breast cancer. Too much to hope for I suppose. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 02:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Support==
''copied from PALMD's [[User_talk:Palmd001|talk]] page''

I'm disappointed I was away from the computer last night ... I find it appalling that Andy is attacking Peter's credentials, when Andy himself does not have any in this field. The hyprocisy is astounding. I've also done my own research into this and see nothing of substance that backs up Andy's claims of a link. Unfortunately this is his site and if he wants to spread false information in an effort to vilify abortions even further that is his agenda. I would think someone who is as religious and allegedy educated as him would be able to tell the difference between facts and trash "research". And the whole calling something you disagree with a liberal agenda, liberal facts, etc only discredits him further.
Peter you have my full support. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== NEJM studies ==

I'll repeat what I said above.

The New England Journal of Medicine has two studies: [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/25/1834] and [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81]. They contradict each other. Given that the NEJM is the most well known medical journal, I think it can be safely said that there is no concrete conclusion here. I then conclude to mention abortion as a risk factor is highly deceptive, unless details about the contraversy are given. Stating that "there is a contraversy" is really not intellectuall satisfyingy, again, unless details are given. If Conservapedia is going to be a "trusted/fair source," then this must be done; otherwise the credibility of the project is undermined. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would like to know on what basis the Breast Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Society are deemed to be 'politicized' when they state unequivocally that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. As it stands, this article is dishonest in making the claim that a proven link exists. I note that there is no citation in support of this.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Danger/Boycott==
Well, I'm still keeping my hands off this article, and my edits out. It is obviously so politicized that it is absurd. Breast cancer is one of the most important health problems in this country. Abortion is one of the most important moral discussions in this country. They happen to be '''medically unrelated'''. I certainly hope people who read the current article do not rely on it for accurate information on breast cancer. I mean this not just because of the "abortion issue" but also because, as long as it remains politicized, no real medical expert will put their name to it and help keep the article otherwise accurate. And before you accuse me of one of those ridiculous 90/10 violations, check my recent contributions.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
==Breast Feeding==
According to the source given in the article, returning to preindustrial fertility may reduce risk, not breast feeding alone. The article states that having an average of 6 children and breast feeding them for an average of 2 years reduces risk. Someone should correct it or clarify it, because as it stands it is misleading--"breastfeeding" alone is not enough.[[User:FredRidr|FredRidr]] 13:55, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== I'm back ==

Sorry to pester (OK, not really)...I have no interest in changing CPs anti-abortion position. But if you want to have an article that is truly informative about breast cancer, you may wish to limit the information to that which has been scientifically proven. For instance, the role of breast self-exam is no longer clear, and that of mammograms is complicated. The role of abortion is however well-known, in that there has never been a proven connection between breast cancer risk and abortion. Also, if there were, it would additionally need to be proved that avoiding abortion reduces breast cancer risk. The data aren't there. The fight against abortion is elsewhere and should not be fought by misinforming people about another health topic.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD" (specialty not in breast cancer), you only continue to prove [[liberal denial]]. See its point #14. Cheers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::I forgot that you do specialize in breast cancer...my mistake.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::Oh, and being an expert in human medicine certainly qualifies me better than anyone else at this site to comment. And inventing a new "liberal" rule every time you realize you are wrong doesn't help make your point. Godspeed. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 00:49, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::::What I saw in the past few edits was Fox unblocking you because it was a simple case of kindness on his part, and you insist on throwing your weight around. PalMD, it is not a right for you to be here; it is a priviledge, and right now you're not doing too well after just three edits. Don't let there be a bad fourth edit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:30, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: "PalMD", your claim of "being an expert in 'human medicine' certainly qualifies [you] better than anyone else at this site to comment" is a comical absurdity. No one is a general expert in "human medicine" and you're not fooling anyone here. I deal with physicians every day, including other physicians on this site, and I have never seen such an unjustified claim of expertise before. Don't pretend to be an expert beyond what you may know, and don't engage in [[liberal denial]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:55, 8 March 2008 (EST)

I have to admit that what I love about this place is that you and Karajou feel free to display your ignorace for all to see. Despite your dealings with [[AAPS]], you are not a medical expert, and obviously know nothing about the field. What is your medical specialty that gives you all the breast cancer knowledge that an internist and medical professor misses? Ever read [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence|Orac]? He is an expert. Good stuff. My knowledge of the law is equally vague. I don't know a writ from a whit. You don't know an internist from an intern. Nothing wrong with that. But it's ok, your [[User:Karajou|enforcer]] will clean up your inconsistencies.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:47, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: "PalMD", you're clueless. Try claiming to be an "expert in 'human medicine'" in a court of law sometime. Five minutes later, which is how long it will take for everyone to stop laughing at your claim, maybe you'll wake up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Let me just clarify for myself. You are an attorney who "talks to doctors". I am a practicing internist (yes, expert in human medicine), a professor of medicine, and an instructor of other physiscians. The "other doctors" here are? Anyway, I don't see how you have any qualifications in this area, and I ''know'' that I do. Patients come to me for just that. Sure, I don't dose chemotherapy, or administer radiation therapy, but believe it or not internists, especially academic internists have to know about this stuff and be able to research it. Anyway, God bless.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:04, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::May I add that it's insulting to a doctor to claim that he has no experience in the area, when you know very little other than anecdotal evidence of the same.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 10:58, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Censorship

2008-03-08T15:56:49Z

AmesG: improved

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons. In another meaning, it is the restriction of a speech act for a content-specific reason.

==What is Not Censorship==
There is a tendency of individuals with particularized political beliefs to conflate "censorship" with "opposition," especially when a desired effect in the public sphere is stymied. However, one must remember that a political goal may be opposed for ''content-neutral'' reasons, making its opposition not ''censorship'', but disagreement with cause. For example, someone arguing against the teaching of [[holocaust denial]] in public schools would not be ''censoring'' holocaust denial, but would be opposing the teaching of a malicious untruth.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality. [[Cato the Elder]] was a famous censor, who during his tenure sought to ensure that Romans did not exploit their opulence to the detriment of the city and its people. Unpopular in his time, Cato became symbolic of the Roman ideal in later years.

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[category:law]]
[[category:politics]]

User:AmesG/social

2007-09-03T02:56:07Z

AmesG: deredlink

{{essay|AmesG}}
__NOTOC__

== An Introductory Word by AmesG ==
Most point-by-point essays can stand and fall of their own accord. I believe that, like others, this essay also speaks for itself. However, the importance of the topic deserves a quick note with which to begin. While no ''less'' of a hack-job than any of his other articles, Ken DeMeyer's arguments here deserve greater attention because they are unfortunately common, and damning in their implications. So here is something to keep in mind, plain and simple.

Ken's argument, here, boils down to this:
# Evolution suggests man is a base, stupid animal.
# Evil people interpret this to mean that man sometimes ''deserves'' to be killed, like a base, stupid animal.
# Evil people act on these instincts due, in greater than 50% part, to evolutionary ideas.
# Evolution is somehow responsible for these people's interpretations.

'''''NONE''''' of the above steps in this "logical" reasoning are valid. The weakest link is (4), which suggests that evolution, as a theory, is responsible for the absurd extremists that it somehow generates. However, I suggest that ''no theory is responsible for its extremists.'' These extremists alone feel the blood on their hands, and the guilt on their souls. If theories could be held responsible for the unforeseeable results generated, and abandoned as such, most every theory - scientific, religious, or otherwise - would have been abandoned today as "morally bankrupt."

Christianity, especially, would be gone. Christianity has led men, throughout the ages, to assume the role of jihadist (no different than the Muslim terrorist) and kill in the name of Christ. Ken's reasoning would suggest that all of Christianity bears this blood, just as much as the actual murderers, and that the theory deserves abrogation, despite any resonant truth to it, by virtue of this idea-guilt.

The idea is too absurd to even rebut. It is self-evident. This absurd idea, though, underlies Ken's entire hypothesis. Since this essential leg fails, his argument is without merit and collapses wholesale.

Now, onto the quote-mining!

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution|a masterwork]] by [[user:Conservative|Ken DeMeyer]] ==
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR>
<TD width=50% valign=top>

<h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:135%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #000000;text-align:center;color:#f6f7ff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Conservative's Original Essay</h2>

This article originates as ''not'' an essay, but actually as a full article! Clearly, Ken DeMeyer thinks that the "facts" of his case are so far beyond reproach as to take them out of the scope of opinion. Ken DeMeyer writes, or rather, copies with sparse analysis:

</TD>
<TD width=50% valign=top>

<h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#000000;font-size:135%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #000000;text-align:center;color:#f6f7ff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">AmesG's Response</h2>

However, what we're looking at here is little more than your average quote-dump, a typical strategy of Ken DeMeyer and other Conservapedia "writers." The quotes can be attacked on their own force, and for the conclusions drawn from them. This hit job falls apart thusly:

</TD>
</TR>

<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==1==
There have been great social ramifications of the acceptance of the [[Theory of evolution]]. H.G. Wells, who was an evolutionist, wrote in his work the Outline of History the following:

{{cquote|The new biological science was bringing nothing constructive as yet to replace the old moral stand-bys. A real de-moralization ensued....

Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog. He is much more than a dog but this they did not see. And just as in a pack it, is necessary to bully and subdue the younger and weaker for the general good, so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue. Hence a new scorn for the ideas of democracy that had ruled the earlier nineteenth century, find a revived admiration for the overbearing and the cruel. <ref>http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/sherwood/Wells-Outline/Text/Part-II.htm</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==1==
Selective quoting is triumphant in this misunderstanding of Wells' argument about the actual effects of evolution. Rather than blaming any moral corruption following Darwin's revelation on Darwin, or on evolution, in fact Wells places the blame squarely on orthodoxy. He notes (correctly, I would argue) that theologians, rather than realizing that evolution and religion were wholly reconcilable, instead declared the two to be in opposition, said that morals were therefore dead, and by naming it, ''themselves'' incited the whole moral race-to-the-bottom of social Darwinism.<ref>Ken carefully neglects this quote, from slightly earlier in the work:

{{cquote|The Christian theologians were neither wise enough nor mentally nimble enough to accept the new truth, modify their formulae, and insist upon the living and undiminished vitality of the religious reality those formulae had hitherto sufficed to express. For the discovery of man's descent from sub-human forms does not even remotely touch the teaching of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet priests and bishops raged at Darwin; foolish attempts were made to suppress Darwinian literature and to insult and discredit the exponents of the new views. There was much wild talk of the "antagonism" of religion and science....

It was the orthodox theology that the new scientific advances had compromised, but the angry theologians declared that it was religion.}}</ref> In brief, according to Wells, orthodox fundamentalists ''created'' the false religion/science dichotomy, and in so doing, compromised morality, science, and religion, all at the same time! He places the blame for the creation of social Darwinists squarely on fundamentalists, whom he argues created the entire controversy because they were not "mentally nimble enough" to see that there ''was'' no controversy.

Wells has the utmost respect for ''both'' religion ''and'' Darwinism, and seeks to explain in this section that the evaporation of morals was both imagined, and short-lived, and in fact describes social Darwinism as "the first crude popular misconception of Darwinism," which society quickly moved beyond. Thus dispelling Ken's misquotation, we should bear in mind Wells' argument about how religion and evolution are reconcilable.<ref>Ken fails to answer this argument elsewhere. I assume, therefore, that he concedes the error, and I win. Yay for Ames!</ref>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==2==
In regards to a demoralization ensuing in a specific portion of history, many works have been written demonstrating that evolutionary ideas were an integral part of Adolph Hitler's Nazism.

In regards to Adolph Hitler and the theory of evolution Richard Hickman wrote in his work ''Biocreation'' the following:

{{cquote|It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. <ref>http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==2==
Ken again suffers from an overgeneralization. Apart from neglecting to give us a citation to a primary work (a popular tactic of his - Ken seems to be more of a quote collector than an actual researcher, a real failing on his part), Ken's argument as a whole suffers from classifying Nazi perversion of Darwinian theories with more general Darwinism, and real science. Ken, and the surely non-biased site "Creationism.Org," both overlook that Nazism and Hitler also depended on concepts like "nationalism," and "pride in country," and "German-ness" to justify their reign of terror. By Ken's logic, Germany is suspect as a concept and a country, and ever shall be. So is nationalism. Never one to think through the implications of his arguments, Ken proves too much with this argument.

As a final point, it's a general truth that trying to argue against your opponent by comparing him to Hitler is an admission of defeat, the loser's last refuge in a debate. This type of hyperbole, in my mind, deprives any viewpoint (liberal or conservative) of any compelling force. Ken's no different.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==3==
B. Wilder-Smith wrote:

{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’ <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==3==
I hate to say, "see above," but, well, "see above." Further, Darwin and evolution make no general statement as to a "Great Chain of Being," an otherwise medeival belief that suggests that one form of life is wholly and objectively better than another. Rather, the most that Darwinism can say is that one form of life, having evolved from an earlier form, is more suited to particular circumstances than the previous. Sometimes, sacrifices are made in evolution: the blind fish loses eyesight, in evolving from a sighted fish, to conserve energy and adapt to a different environment. It's not better than a sighted fish; it's just different, and ''better evolved for the circumstances''.

The fact that some zealous morons misinterpret Darwinism to suggest objective "better-ness" through evolution, that organisms at every turn come one step closer to the Form of the Good, is just an overextension of Platonism , misapplied towards genocidal aims. The over-stretch is no more damning of Darwinism than it is of Platonism.
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==4==
George Stein concurs and wrote in the journal American Scientist the following:

{{cquote|Hitler's views are rather straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that... [Darwin's theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist "biopolicy," [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a [[monistic]], antitranscendent moral [[nihilism]] based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection. - George Stein, "Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism." American Scientist, Vol. 76, No. 1, Jan-Feb., 1988, pp. 50-58. <ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Bergman.html</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==4==
We must thank Ken for citing, again, an authority that seems to cut against him. As Stein is cited as saying by the same suspicious article, {{cquote| There is little doubt that the history of ethnocentrism, racism, nationalism, and xenophobia has also been a history of the use of science and the actions of scientists in support of these ideas and social movements. In many cases it is clear that science was used merely as raw material or evidence by ideologically interested political actors as proof of preconceived notions. Most contemporary sociobiologists and students of biopolitics would argue that all attempts to use science in this manner are, in fact, mere pseudoscience.... [but] if the scientists of the day used the science of the day to advance racism, it is simply a form of Kuhnian amnesia or historical whitewash to dismiss concern with a possible contemporary abuse of science by a claim that the past abuse was mere pseudoscience.}}<ref>Farther down on the previous citation, which Ken cites to in an attempt to prove his "point." Admittedly, Stein comes down hard on modern scientists who would similarly abuse science, and distinguish their abuse from others by labeling previous abuses "mere pseudoscience." But Stein ''does not say that all science is culpable'', rather, he says that the people abusing the science are culpable! Anyone misusing science for political ends is, in Stein's eyes, corrupt and suspect, no matter what the era.</ref>

Ken's authority therefore recognizes that the use of science to advance political goals is mere pseudoscience and abuse of the discipline of science... even though it may, unfortunately, be all too commonplace. Stein proves my point: Darwinism as science is distinguishable from Darwinism as ''political theory''. As Stein describes, the element that transforms value-neutral evolutionary science into morally culpable social Darwinism is a moral failing traceable solely to the person misapplying the science - not traceable to the science itself. To write it in a chemical formula...

:Evolutionary theory -- (evil humans) --> evil perversion of evolutionary theory.

The evil only comes in through the secondary, non-scientific interpretation. The moral culpability of Hitler's application of evolutionary theory is traceable only to Hitler, not (through some perversion of "logic") to Darwin!
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==5==
Even the staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:

{{cquote|Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78). <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==5==
To sum up, in the words of [[user:Imroy|Imroy]]:

{{cquote|The fact that Hitler and his Nazi party drew on Evolution is a red herring. [[Ann Coulter]] has said that all "[[liberals]]" should be killed. She also claims to be "conservative" and a "christian", and that all other conservatives and christians should think like her. But do all conservatives and christians believe that all liberals should be killed? No. Ann is just an extremist nutcase. As was Hitler.

To tar the entire theory of evolution because of one psychopath's exploitation of it is simply intellectually dishonest. Hitler used evolution to explain and somehow legitimise his extreme ideas about eugenics and racial extermination. That didn't make his ideas any less evil, just easier for the crowds to nod along with his rants and carry out the wishes of the Nazi party. And it didn't make evolution somehow to blame for his ideas.}}

</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==6==
In addition to greatly influencing Hitler's Nazism, evolutionary ideas influenced the thinking of the [[Communism|Communists]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==6==
[[user:Gulik|Guilk]] writes of Social Darwinism, and its link, if any, to real Darwinism:

{{cquote|To a scientist, it's sheer foolishness to try to draw '''moral''' lessons from '''natural''' phenomena. Most of the so-called "Social Darwinists" were simply looking for justification for their already on-going exploitation of the poor. If they hadn't found it by misreading Darwin, they would have had to go back to misreading the Bible.}}

He hits the nail on the head. The writer of a text can't be held liable for the creative, even genocidal, misinterpretations of the original text. And to reiterate a main theme of my own writings (see [[Sam_Brownback:_What_I_Think_About_Evolution|my reply]] to ''wunderkind'' Sam Brownback's 2007 ''Times'' op-ed), science offers ''no moral lessons'', just as [[user:Gulik|Gulik]] says. Most of the objections to evolutionary science from creationists seem to relate to the argument that evolution somehow co-opts the moral role of philosophy & religion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Evolution offers a ''how''; some people may try to infer a ''why'' from the bare facts, but those people are either looking too hard, or too easily offended, or (most likely) both.
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==7==
Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:

{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.''

Since then I have spend well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==7==
Except in the word "revolution," this quote never mentions, nor is applicable to, the concept of the theory of evolution. Rather, it seeks to blame all tragedies of the world on godlessness, which is [[theistic evolution|not quite the same]] as evolution.

Now, I have the utmost respect for [[wp:Alexander Solzhenitsyn|Solzhenitsyn]], but I have to take issue with him on his argument about the dangers of godlessness. Solzhenitsyn seems to think that atheism (and especially the atheism inherent in communism) renders mankind morally adrift, without any guiding principles whatsoever, and prone to the worst forms of immorality.

Atheism has no such result. While I do not contest the evils of communism under the USSR, and I do not contest that religion has the amazing capacity to (when practiced and taught well, as is unfortunately rare) provide moral guidance to those who otherwise would not be able to find their own morality,<ref>I would also like to note, I do not believe that the kind of religion practiced by Ken is the kind that has the power to lift up the otherwise morally directionless. Rather, I think it often has the opposite effect! Dogmatic allegiance to the ''literal meaning'' of moral precepts (the shallowest examination, truly) fosters neither the kind of independent thought, nor the kind of deep-seated moral compass, which is conducive to the well-reasoned and principled practice of ethics.</ref> religion is hardly the only source of morality. In fact, if religion were the only source of morality, I think it would speak quite poorly for the human race as a whole, and demean the dignity inherent in humanity. Based on my personal knowledge of atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, etc., I have found that the areligious are often more moral than the allegedly quite religious. The precepts of the Ten Commandments are much more basic to human nature than some book, and the abandonment of the book that espouses the rules does not necessitate the abandonment of the morality that the book codifies!
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==8==
Evolutionary ideas also contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref> Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>

John C. Burnham wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following:

{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior — he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton." <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==8==
I suspect that this quote from John Burnham is something of a quote-mine, but, since Ken only hands us the quotation from the laudable Institution of Creation Research, and not a primary source citation, I am not presented with the tools to criticize any such selective citation. I think, though, that this article has proven enough to suggest where Ken quotes a study, the idea that it has been unceremoniously altered should be a [[rebuttable presumption]].

That said, I'll take Burnham's quote at face value. A basic assumption to his argument is that ''the evolutionary schema'' itself, by its own force, suggests moral and racial conclusions. It does no such thing, at least not of its own accord. Evolutionary theory makes objective, falsifiable, scientific conclusions of fact: science is utterly powerless to make any conclusions of moral value or moral weight, and thus, if the evolutionary "schema" does make racist conclusions, it only does so through the hands of a racist interpreter. This corrupting influence is to blame; not the knowledge itself.

As a conclusory remark, it is self-evident that knowledge is powerful. The power of knowledge, though, is prone to abuse. Anyone with a political or social agenda can take a fact and, with the appropriate amount of spin, leverage it to improper and evil ends. All knowledge is amenable to this corruption. Scientific knowledge, unfortunately, may be particularly prone to it. However, the fact that knowledge is abused, or capable of abuse, should not make the pursuit of knowledge ''moot'', nor should it make any scientific conclusions suspect. To assume otherwise would be to halt all scientific progress and all creative thought in all of western society, for truly, all knowledge and all thought hold potential for abuse by the weak-minded and the evil.

Truly, the strange suspicion of science held by Ken and the Institute of Creation Research would, at its extreme, throw us back to the Stone Age.

</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==9==
Australian atheist and philosopher David Stove argues that evolutionary ideas were influential in regards to the sexual revolution. In his work entitled ''Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution'', Stove states that The “new religion of selfish genes” classifies all humans as biological errors. <ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref> Stove further states that “the great sexual emancipators after 1859” (Ellis, Freud, Lenin, Stopes, Sanger, Mead, Wilhelm Reich]) "were all Darwinians" and that [[genetics]] supplied "the new religionists" their gods ... the [[chromosome]]s of the sex cells.” <ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref>
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==9==
Again, I suspect that this quote (in context) would cut against Ken's argument. But his basic argument here - that Darwinism fostered the sexual enlightenment - does not seem to cut against Darwinism, unless one assumes that the sexual enlightenment is ''per se'' bad. Since Ken fails to prove this point, he fails to prove how Darwinism is in this case bad. Further, despite Stove's statement<ref>(I reiterate my opinion that Stove never stated that humans are "biological errors," and again, I suspect quote-mining)</ref> that humans are "biological errors," his opinion is hardly conclusory as to the actual meaning of the theory of evolution. While Ken loves arguments from authority, the words of a philosopher are hardly outcome-determinative.

To meet the issue head on, though, as I have explained at length [[Sam Brownback: What I Think About Evolution|here]], evolution does not say that humans are ''biological errors'' in the pejorative sense implied in the term, or in the actual science of how evolution works. This value-laden characterization of Darwin's theory is not compelled by the science, but grafted on by zealous anti-science partisans. It's a [[straw man]] argument, and this anti-evolutionist tripe can be cursorily dismissed as such.
</TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>

== Conclusion ==
The foregoing should prove that evolution cannot be held "responsible" for any of the evils of racism, and should also prove that the arguments which attempt to hold evolution as culpable are just the sorts of anti-intellectual, Luddite, backwards-looking, [http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/234.html Miniver Cheevy-esque] nonsense we've come to expect from creationists, as they seek desperately to fend off scientific truths that don't actually contradict religion, but nonetheless scare them witless.

One final word. Assume all of Ken's "essay" is correct. Assume evolution did cause racism, and the Holocaust, and (why not?) the tragedy of September 11th. That still doesn't make the theory of evolution scientifically false.

And this is one of Ken's ''best'' arguments, too! Really makes you think, huh.
== References ==
<references/>

User:AmesG/social

2007-09-03T02:55:33Z

AmesG: added essay w/o reference to Other Place

{{essay|AmesG}}
__NOTOC__

== An Introductory Word by AmesG ==
Most point-by-point essays can stand and fall of their own accord. I believe that, like others, this essay also speaks for itself. However, the importance of the topic deserves a quick note with which to begin. While no ''less'' of a hack-job than any of his other articles, Ken DeMeyer's arguments here deserve greater attention because they are unfortunately common, and damning in their implications. So here is something to keep in mind, plain and simple.

Ken's argument, here, boils down to this:
# Evolution suggests man is a base, stupid animal.
# Evil people interpret this to mean that man sometimes ''deserves'' to be killed, like a base, stupid animal.
# Evil people act on these instincts due, in greater than 50% part, to evolutionary ideas.
# Evolution is somehow responsible for these people's interpretations.

'''''NONE''''' of the above steps in this "logical" reasoning are valid. The weakest link is (4), which suggests that evolution, as a theory, is responsible for the absurd extremists that it somehow generates. However, I suggest that ''no theory is responsible for its extremists.'' These extremists alone feel the blood on their hands, and the guilt on their souls. If theories could be held responsible for the unforeseeable results generated, and abandoned as such, most every theory - scientific, religious, or otherwise - would have been abandoned today as "morally bankrupt."

Christianity, especially, would be gone. Christianity has led men, throughout the ages, to assume the role of jihadist (no different than the Muslim terrorist) and kill in the name of Christ. Ken's reasoning would suggest that all of Christianity bears this blood, just as much as the actual murderers, and that the theory deserves abrogation, despite any resonant truth to it, by virtue of this idea-guilt.

The idea is too absurd to even rebut. It is self-evident. This absurd idea, though, underlies Ken's entire hypothesis. Since this essential leg fails, his argument is without merit and collapses wholesale.

Now, onto the quote-mining!

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[cp:Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution|a masterwork]] by [[cp:user:Conservative|Ken DeMeyer]] ==
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR>
<TD width=50% valign=top>

<h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:135%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #000000;text-align:center;color:#f6f7ff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Conservative's Original Essay</h2>

This article originates as ''not'' an essay, but actually as a full article! Clearly, Ken DeMeyer thinks that the "facts" of his case are so far beyond reproach as to take them out of the scope of opinion. Ken DeMeyer writes, or rather, copies with sparse analysis:

</TD>
<TD width=50% valign=top>

<h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#000000;font-size:135%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #000000;text-align:center;color:#f6f7ff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">AmesG's Response</h2>

However, what we're looking at here is little more than your average quote-dump, a typical strategy of Ken DeMeyer and other Conservapedia "writers." The quotes can be attacked on their own force, and for the conclusions drawn from them. This hit job falls apart thusly:

</TD>
</TR>

<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==1==
There have been great social ramifications of the acceptance of the [[Theory of evolution]]. H.G. Wells, who was an evolutionist, wrote in his work the Outline of History the following:

{{cquote|The new biological science was bringing nothing constructive as yet to replace the old moral stand-bys. A real de-moralization ensued....

Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog. He is much more than a dog but this they did not see. And just as in a pack it, is necessary to bully and subdue the younger and weaker for the general good, so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue. Hence a new scorn for the ideas of democracy that had ruled the earlier nineteenth century, find a revived admiration for the overbearing and the cruel. <ref>http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/sherwood/Wells-Outline/Text/Part-II.htm</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==1==
Selective quoting is triumphant in this misunderstanding of Wells' argument about the actual effects of evolution. Rather than blaming any moral corruption following Darwin's revelation on Darwin, or on evolution, in fact Wells places the blame squarely on orthodoxy. He notes (correctly, I would argue) that theologians, rather than realizing that evolution and religion were wholly reconcilable, instead declared the two to be in opposition, said that morals were therefore dead, and by naming it, ''themselves'' incited the whole moral race-to-the-bottom of social Darwinism.<ref>Ken carefully neglects this quote, from slightly earlier in the work:

{{cquote|The Christian theologians were neither wise enough nor mentally nimble enough to accept the new truth, modify their formulae, and insist upon the living and undiminished vitality of the religious reality those formulae had hitherto sufficed to express. For the discovery of man's descent from sub-human forms does not even remotely touch the teaching of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet priests and bishops raged at Darwin; foolish attempts were made to suppress Darwinian literature and to insult and discredit the exponents of the new views. There was much wild talk of the "antagonism" of religion and science....

It was the orthodox theology that the new scientific advances had compromised, but the angry theologians declared that it was religion.}}</ref> In brief, according to Wells, orthodox fundamentalists ''created'' the false religion/science dichotomy, and in so doing, compromised morality, science, and religion, all at the same time! He places the blame for the creation of social Darwinists squarely on fundamentalists, whom he argues created the entire controversy because they were not "mentally nimble enough" to see that there ''was'' no controversy.

Wells has the utmost respect for ''both'' religion ''and'' Darwinism, and seeks to explain in this section that the evaporation of morals was both imagined, and short-lived, and in fact describes social Darwinism as "the first crude popular misconception of Darwinism," which society quickly moved beyond. Thus dispelling Ken's misquotation, we should bear in mind Wells' argument about how religion and evolution are reconcilable.<ref>Ken fails to answer this argument elsewhere. I assume, therefore, that he concedes the error, and I win. Yay for Ames!</ref>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==2==
In regards to a demoralization ensuing in a specific portion of history, many works have been written demonstrating that evolutionary ideas were an integral part of Adolph Hitler's Nazism.

In regards to Adolph Hitler and the theory of evolution Richard Hickman wrote in his work ''Biocreation'' the following:

{{cquote|It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. <ref>http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==2==
Ken again suffers from an overgeneralization. Apart from neglecting to give us a citation to a primary work (a popular tactic of his - Ken seems to be more of a quote collector than an actual researcher, a real failing on his part), Ken's argument as a whole suffers from classifying Nazi perversion of Darwinian theories with more general Darwinism, and real science. Ken, and the surely non-biased site "Creationism.Org," both overlook that Nazism and Hitler also depended on concepts like "nationalism," and "pride in country," and "German-ness" to justify their reign of terror. By Ken's logic, Germany is suspect as a concept and a country, and ever shall be. So is nationalism. Never one to think through the implications of his arguments, Ken proves too much with this argument.

As a final point, it's a general truth that trying to argue against your opponent by comparing him to Hitler is an admission of defeat, the loser's last refuge in a debate. This type of hyperbole, in my mind, deprives any viewpoint (liberal or conservative) of any compelling force. Ken's no different.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==3==
B. Wilder-Smith wrote:

{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’ <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==3==
I hate to say, "see above," but, well, "see above." Further, Darwin and evolution make no general statement as to a "Great Chain of Being," an otherwise medeival belief that suggests that one form of life is wholly and objectively better than another. Rather, the most that Darwinism can say is that one form of life, having evolved from an earlier form, is more suited to particular circumstances than the previous. Sometimes, sacrifices are made in evolution: the blind fish loses eyesight, in evolving from a sighted fish, to conserve energy and adapt to a different environment. It's not better than a sighted fish; it's just different, and ''better evolved for the circumstances''.

The fact that some zealous morons misinterpret Darwinism to suggest objective "better-ness" through evolution, that organisms at every turn come one step closer to the Form of the Good, is just an overextension of Platonism , misapplied towards genocidal aims. The over-stretch is no more damning of Darwinism than it is of Platonism.
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==4==
George Stein concurs and wrote in the journal American Scientist the following:

{{cquote|Hitler's views are rather straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that... [Darwin's theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist "biopolicy," [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a [[monistic]], antitranscendent moral [[nihilism]] based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection. - George Stein, "Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism." American Scientist, Vol. 76, No. 1, Jan-Feb., 1988, pp. 50-58. <ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Bergman.html</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==4==
We must thank Ken for citing, again, an authority that seems to cut against him. As Stein is cited as saying by the same suspicious article, {{cquote| There is little doubt that the history of ethnocentrism, racism, nationalism, and xenophobia has also been a history of the use of science and the actions of scientists in support of these ideas and social movements. In many cases it is clear that science was used merely as raw material or evidence by ideologically interested political actors as proof of preconceived notions. Most contemporary sociobiologists and students of biopolitics would argue that all attempts to use science in this manner are, in fact, mere pseudoscience.... [but] if the scientists of the day used the science of the day to advance racism, it is simply a form of Kuhnian amnesia or historical whitewash to dismiss concern with a possible contemporary abuse of science by a claim that the past abuse was mere pseudoscience.}}<ref>Farther down on the previous citation, which Ken cites to in an attempt to prove his "point." Admittedly, Stein comes down hard on modern scientists who would similarly abuse science, and distinguish their abuse from others by labeling previous abuses "mere pseudoscience." But Stein ''does not say that all science is culpable'', rather, he says that the people abusing the science are culpable! Anyone misusing science for political ends is, in Stein's eyes, corrupt and suspect, no matter what the era.</ref>

Ken's authority therefore recognizes that the use of science to advance political goals is mere pseudoscience and abuse of the discipline of science... even though it may, unfortunately, be all too commonplace. Stein proves my point: Darwinism as science is distinguishable from Darwinism as ''political theory''. As Stein describes, the element that transforms value-neutral evolutionary science into morally culpable social Darwinism is a moral failing traceable solely to the person misapplying the science - not traceable to the science itself. To write it in a chemical formula...

:Evolutionary theory -- (evil humans) --> evil perversion of evolutionary theory.

The evil only comes in through the secondary, non-scientific interpretation. The moral culpability of Hitler's application of evolutionary theory is traceable only to Hitler, not (through some perversion of "logic") to Darwin!
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==5==
Even the staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:

{{cquote|Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78). <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==5==
To sum up, in the words of [[user:Imroy|Imroy]]:

{{cquote|The fact that Hitler and his Nazi party drew on Evolution is a red herring. [[Ann Coulter]] has said that all "[[liberals]]" should be killed. She also claims to be "conservative" and a "christian", and that all other conservatives and christians should think like her. But do all conservatives and christians believe that all liberals should be killed? No. Ann is just an extremist nutcase. As was Hitler.

To tar the entire theory of evolution because of one psychopath's exploitation of it is simply intellectually dishonest. Hitler used evolution to explain and somehow legitimise his extreme ideas about eugenics and racial extermination. That didn't make his ideas any less evil, just easier for the crowds to nod along with his rants and carry out the wishes of the Nazi party. And it didn't make evolution somehow to blame for his ideas.}}

</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD valign=top>

==6==
In addition to greatly influencing Hitler's Nazism, evolutionary ideas influenced the thinking of the [[Communism|Communists]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==6==
[[user:Gulik|Guilk]] writes of Social Darwinism, and its link, if any, to real Darwinism:

{{cquote|To a scientist, it's sheer foolishness to try to draw '''moral''' lessons from '''natural''' phenomena. Most of the so-called "Social Darwinists" were simply looking for justification for their already on-going exploitation of the poor. If they hadn't found it by misreading Darwin, they would have had to go back to misreading the Bible.}}

He hits the nail on the head. The writer of a text can't be held liable for the creative, even genocidal, misinterpretations of the original text. And to reiterate a main theme of my own writings (see [[Sam_Brownback:_What_I_Think_About_Evolution|my reply]] to ''wunderkind'' Sam Brownback's 2007 ''Times'' op-ed), science offers ''no moral lessons'', just as [[user:Gulik|Gulik]] says. Most of the objections to evolutionary science from creationists seem to relate to the argument that evolution somehow co-opts the moral role of philosophy & religion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Evolution offers a ''how''; some people may try to infer a ''why'' from the bare facts, but those people are either looking too hard, or too easily offended, or (most likely) both.
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==7==
Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:

{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.''

Since then I have spend well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==7==
Except in the word "revolution," this quote never mentions, nor is applicable to, the concept of the theory of evolution. Rather, it seeks to blame all tragedies of the world on godlessness, which is [[theistic evolution|not quite the same]] as evolution.

Now, I have the utmost respect for [[wp:Alexander Solzhenitsyn|Solzhenitsyn]], but I have to take issue with him on his argument about the dangers of godlessness. Solzhenitsyn seems to think that atheism (and especially the atheism inherent in communism) renders mankind morally adrift, without any guiding principles whatsoever, and prone to the worst forms of immorality.

Atheism has no such result. While I do not contest the evils of communism under the USSR, and I do not contest that religion has the amazing capacity to (when practiced and taught well, as is unfortunately rare) provide moral guidance to those who otherwise would not be able to find their own morality,<ref>I would also like to note, I do not believe that the kind of religion practiced by Ken is the kind that has the power to lift up the otherwise morally directionless. Rather, I think it often has the opposite effect! Dogmatic allegiance to the ''literal meaning'' of moral precepts (the shallowest examination, truly) fosters neither the kind of independent thought, nor the kind of deep-seated moral compass, which is conducive to the well-reasoned and principled practice of ethics.</ref> religion is hardly the only source of morality. In fact, if religion were the only source of morality, I think it would speak quite poorly for the human race as a whole, and demean the dignity inherent in humanity. Based on my personal knowledge of atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, etc., I have found that the areligious are often more moral than the allegedly quite religious. The precepts of the Ten Commandments are much more basic to human nature than some book, and the abandonment of the book that espouses the rules does not necessitate the abandonment of the morality that the book codifies!
</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==8==
Evolutionary ideas also contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref> Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>

John C. Burnham wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following:

{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior — he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton." <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>}}
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==8==
I suspect that this quote from John Burnham is something of a quote-mine, but, since Ken only hands us the quotation from the laudable Institution of Creation Research, and not a primary source citation, I am not presented with the tools to criticize any such selective citation. I think, though, that this article has proven enough to suggest where Ken quotes a study, the idea that it has been unceremoniously altered should be a [[rebuttable presumption]].

That said, I'll take Burnham's quote at face value. A basic assumption to his argument is that ''the evolutionary schema'' itself, by its own force, suggests moral and racial conclusions. It does no such thing, at least not of its own accord. Evolutionary theory makes objective, falsifiable, scientific conclusions of fact: science is utterly powerless to make any conclusions of moral value or moral weight, and thus, if the evolutionary "schema" does make racist conclusions, it only does so through the hands of a racist interpreter. This corrupting influence is to blame; not the knowledge itself.

As a conclusory remark, it is self-evident that knowledge is powerful. The power of knowledge, though, is prone to abuse. Anyone with a political or social agenda can take a fact and, with the appropriate amount of spin, leverage it to improper and evil ends. All knowledge is amenable to this corruption. Scientific knowledge, unfortunately, may be particularly prone to it. However, the fact that knowledge is abused, or capable of abuse, should not make the pursuit of knowledge ''moot'', nor should it make any scientific conclusions suspect. To assume otherwise would be to halt all scientific progress and all creative thought in all of western society, for truly, all knowledge and all thought hold potential for abuse by the weak-minded and the evil.

Truly, the strange suspicion of science held by Ken and the Institute of Creation Research would, at its extreme, throw us back to the Stone Age.

</TD>
</TR><TR>
<TD valign=top>

==9==
Australian atheist and philosopher David Stove argues that evolutionary ideas were influential in regards to the sexual revolution. In his work entitled ''Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution'', Stove states that The “new religion of selfish genes” classifies all humans as biological errors. <ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref> Stove further states that “the great sexual emancipators after 1859” (Ellis, Freud, Lenin, Stopes, Sanger, Mead, Wilhelm Reich]) "were all Darwinians" and that [[genetics]] supplied "the new religionists" their gods ... the [[chromosome]]s of the sex cells.” <ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref>
</TD>
<TD valign=top>

==9==
Again, I suspect that this quote (in context) would cut against Ken's argument. But his basic argument here - that Darwinism fostered the sexual enlightenment - does not seem to cut against Darwinism, unless one assumes that the sexual enlightenment is ''per se'' bad. Since Ken fails to prove this point, he fails to prove how Darwinism is in this case bad. Further, despite Stove's statement<ref>(I reiterate my opinion that Stove never stated that humans are "biological errors," and again, I suspect quote-mining)</ref> that humans are "biological errors," his opinion is hardly conclusory as to the actual meaning of the theory of evolution. While Ken loves arguments from authority, the words of a philosopher are hardly outcome-determinative.

To meet the issue head on, though, as I have explained at length [[Sam Brownback: What I Think About Evolution|here]], evolution does not say that humans are ''biological errors'' in the pejorative sense implied in the term, or in the actual science of how evolution works. This value-laden characterization of Darwin's theory is not compelled by the science, but grafted on by zealous anti-science partisans. It's a [[straw man]] argument, and this anti-evolutionist tripe can be cursorily dismissed as such.
</TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>

== Conclusion ==
The foregoing should prove that evolution cannot be held "responsible" for any of the evils of racism, and should also prove that the arguments which attempt to hold evolution as culpable are just the sorts of anti-intellectual, Luddite, backwards-looking, [http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/234.html Miniver Cheevy-esque] nonsense we've come to expect from creationists, as they seek desperately to fend off scientific truths that don't actually contradict religion, but nonetheless scare them witless.

One final word. Assume all of Ken's "essay" is correct. Assume evolution did cause racism, and the Holocaust, and (why not?) the tragedy of September 11th. That still doesn't make the theory of evolution scientifically false.

And this is one of Ken's ''best'' arguments, too! Really makes you think, huh.
== References ==
<references/>

File talk:Conservapedians2.jpg

2007-09-02T01:53:21Z

AmesG: New page: Is this Model UN? Not going to brag, but I was awesome at it back in the day.-~~~~

Is this Model UN? Not going to brag, but I was awesome at it back in the day.-'''αmεσ[[User_talk:AmesG| (!)]]''' 21:53, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Substantive due process

2007-05-06T23:40:15Z

AmesG:

''"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process."''
--I am mightily inmpressed! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Loving v Virginia ==
Why is there a long discussion of this case, when it didn't even involve substantive due process? One line of dicta does not justify it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP. Trust me. I'm going over this case now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Galaxy

2007-05-06T23:32:02Z

AmesG:

''It has been pointed out that since YEC doesn't even adequately explain how the light from distant galaxies is supposed to have reached the Earth in less than 10,000 years, any criticism Creationists make of conventional theories is rather moot.''

: This is a non-sensical statement. A criticism of one theory is not rendered moot by the inability of the critics to provide a comprehensive alternative theory. The criticism remains valid -- it is just equally applicable to both theories. Just because I can't explain how life came from non-life doesn't mean my criticisms of another theory are no good. It means that we need to all admit that we just don't know.

: Besides that, creationists can easily provide an explanation for the light "problem" -- that the universe is older than 10k years, but the Earth was made habitable 10k years ago.

: Is it appropriate to provide a rebuttal to this nonsensical "criticism?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Your rebuttal goes against biblical literalism: if the universe was created in 7 24-hour days, yet the stars are older than 6,000 years... one of those days was very, very long, then.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: there are two parts to the rebuttal -- the first goes to logic, not literalism. the second goes against strict innerancy and literalism, but not the substance of Genesis, nor creationism as a whole. a scientific creationism must be committed to truth, not text. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:30, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I mean, I agree with you, but then doesn't a scientific creationism abandon the young earth thing altogether?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Galaxy

2007-05-06T23:25:41Z

AmesG:

Galaxy

2007-05-06T23:23:36Z

AmesG: /* Criticisms of the Young Earth Creationist View */ {{fact}}'d

[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral galaxy ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
A '''galaxy''' is a massive ensemble of hundreds of millions of [[star]]s and [[planet]]s, all interacting through the [[gravity|gravitational force]], [[orbit]]ing around a common center.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> The [[universe]] contains hundreds of millions of galaxies. Some scholars theorize that the center of every galaxy lies a super massive [[black hole]].

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientist assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of galaxy formation are unsupportable and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences22.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/galaxies.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5065</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/galaxy.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/galaxies.asp</ref> In 1988, fifty cosmologists attended a conference which focused on galaxy formation. After summarizing the observational data, two of the most respected scientists estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct was about 1 out of 100. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> In 1999, J. Bland-Hawthorn wrote in the science journal [[Nature]] the following:

In 1977, [[Stephen Weinberg]] observed that "the theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution". Although the past two decades have seen considerable progress, many questions remain. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6741/full/400220a0.html</ref>

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>
</blockquote>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] wrote the following regarding a 2005 article in [[Science News]] the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, "Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril," the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men," Ron Cowen quipped. "That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos."....
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time: based on Hubble surveys, "the grand finale came first" in stellar and galactic evolution. As far back as telescopes look, they see mature creation, not evolution. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref>
</blockquote>

Young earth creationists also cite the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
“In its simplest form, the [[Big Bang Theory|Big Bang]] scenario doesn’t look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea.” Ivars Peterson, Science News, "Seeding the universe: how did matter assemble itself into the giant filaments, clusters, bubbles and walls of galaxies that now fill the universe?" March 24, 1990, p. 184. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n12_v137/ai_8878747</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
“It [the Great Wall, composed of tens of thousands of galaxies] is far too large and too massive to have formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885. [See also Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>
</blockquote>

==Criticisms of the Young Earth Creationist View==
It has been pointed out that since YEC doesn't even adequately explain how the light from distant galaxies is supposed to have reached the Earth in less than 10,000 years.{{fact}}

==See Also==
[[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Galaxy

2007-05-06T23:23:07Z

AmesG: Undo revision 146464 by Special:Contributions/Conservative (User talk:Conservative) can't delete things that you don't agree with. Equal time, buddy.

[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral galaxy ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
A '''galaxy''' is a massive ensemble of hundreds of millions of [[star]]s and [[planet]]s, all interacting through the [[gravity|gravitational force]], [[orbit]]ing around a common center.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> The [[universe]] contains hundreds of millions of galaxies. Some scholars theorize that the center of every galaxy lies a super massive [[black hole]].

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientist assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of galaxy formation are unsupportable and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences22.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/galaxies.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5065</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/galaxy.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/galaxies.asp</ref> In 1988, fifty cosmologists attended a conference which focused on galaxy formation. After summarizing the observational data, two of the most respected scientists estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct was about 1 out of 100. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> In 1999, J. Bland-Hawthorn wrote in the science journal [[Nature]] the following:

In 1977, [[Stephen Weinberg]] observed that "the theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution". Although the past two decades have seen considerable progress, many questions remain. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6741/full/400220a0.html</ref>

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>
</blockquote>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] wrote the following regarding a 2005 article in [[Science News]] the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, "Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril," the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men," Ron Cowen quipped. "That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos."....
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time: based on Hubble surveys, "the grand finale came first" in stellar and galactic evolution. As far back as telescopes look, they see mature creation, not evolution. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref>
</blockquote>

Young earth creationists also cite the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
“In its simplest form, the [[Big Bang Theory|Big Bang]] scenario doesn’t look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea.” Ivars Peterson, Science News, "Seeding the universe: how did matter assemble itself into the giant filaments, clusters, bubbles and walls of galaxies that now fill the universe?" March 24, 1990, p. 184. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref> <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n12_v137/ai_8878747</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
“It [the Great Wall, composed of tens of thousands of galaxies] is far too large and too massive to have formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885. [See also Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>
</blockquote>

==Criticisms of the Young Earth Creationist View==
It has been pointed out that since YEC doesn't even adequately explain how the light from distant galaxies is supposed to have reached the Earth in less than 10,000 years, any criticism made by Creationists concerning conventional theories is rather moot.

==See Also==
[[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Smithsonian-Sternberg affair

2007-05-06T23:21:31Z

AmesG:

== Smithsonian Controversy ==
The Smithsonian controversy began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an [[intelligent design]] proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>{{cite|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, {{cite|Hagerty|2005}}, {{cite|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref> contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.<ref name="statement">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref> An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>{{cite|Meyer|2004|p=213-239}}</ref> [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[National Museum of Natural History|NMNH]]), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>{{cite|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>{{cite|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref> Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]]), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,"<ref>{{cite|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, Statement to Washington Post reporter</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>{{cite|Hagerty|2005}} Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's role.

Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a [[National Museum of Natural History]] (NMNH) Research Associate (RA).<ref>{{cite|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref> Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel ([[United States Office of Special Counsel|USOSC]]) investigate his allegations.<ref>{{cite|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref> The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH.<ref>{{cite|Hagerty|2005}}, {{cite|Powell|2005|p=A19}} letter is referred to as a report in this article, but quotes make it clear that the report was addressed to Sternberg. See also {{cite|McVay|2005}} USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg</ref> However, the USOSC closed the investigation without taking further action due to the jurisdictional issue of Richard Sternberg's salary, which was not paid by the Smithsonian.<ref>{{cite|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, {{cite|Hagerty|2005}}, {{cite|USHRCGR|2006}}, USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg</ref> Eugenie Scott, whose organization also consulted with the Smithsoian, countered that "<nowiki>[Sternberg]</nowiki> didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office....You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."<ref>{{cite|Hagerty|2005}}</ref> [[Mark Souder|U.S. Representative Mark Souder's]] staff subsequently issued a report findng that the allegations of a hostile work envirionment and other retaliations including demotion were backed by "substantial, credible evidence."<ref>{{cite|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref>

=== Opinions on the Smithsonian Controversy ===

In a [[Wall Street Journal]] op-ed article, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Discovery Institute Fellows]</ref> portrayed Sternberg as a martyr and victim of discrimination,<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic] David Klinghoffer. OpinionJournal, January 28.</ref> a tactic used often by intelligent design proponents.<ref>"The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas."[http://www.jci.org/cgi/reprint/116/5/1134.pdf Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. (10226K PDF file) </ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T23:13:43Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}
Archive(s): [[/1]]
==Science again==
This article I think is complete and it's been nominated for feature status. Let me add a personal observation: many who disputed the science in the Evolution related articles were curiously silent when it came to discussing the science in this article, or dismissed the science outright. There is something to be learned from this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's not really any science in this article to speak of. The sentence about the therapeutic community being divided is, in my view of that community, a mischaracterization because it suggests a relatively even split, which I don't think is accurate. If there's a citation that supports that point fine, but as is it doesn't work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the article still needs work. It says, "Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds". But the word homophobia is not just used against those who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds. In fact it is usually used against others. It is used against those who oppose same-sex marriage, even when the opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
: The etymology may not be correct. My Merriam-Webster dictionary gives 1958 for the earliest known usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::The etymology is sourced to Gregory M. Herek, ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century'', Sexuality Research & Social Policy, April, 2004, one more reason this psuedoscience is suspect. A cite dating back to 1958 supports Dr. Breiner's claim, "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" and "There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined". The psuedoscience which has permeated the research community has produced volumes of research papers propounding "internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia", which the theraputic community as a whole has failed to adopt or recognize as having any sort of valid scientific basis, at least as far as diagnosis and treatment are concerned (it may have some value in the Sociological field, but that does not carry the weight among legislators for whom this psuedoscience is intended to influence). As far as Herek is concerned, the term did in fact enter mainstream and journalistic use about the time he claims, 1973 and after, and the assertion it reached mainstream use starting with pornographic publications (''Screw'' magazine likewise probably can be supported by the evidence). The claim Weinberg invented it is probably fauilty, but we can say "gay activist and psychologist Gerald Weinberg helped popularize the term".

::What may be most valueable here is demonstrating how the attacks on Creation science claim it lacks a "true" scientific basis, yet those making the attacks are absolutely powerless to give any scientific support to the idea of "homophobia", which was the original intent when the term was popularized. Having failed to hijack the psychologcial research and theraputic professions to futher the homosexual agenda, we see the next phase of an activist agenda taking shape with an attempt to redefine the same flawed theories in new language using legel terminology (hetero "sexism") instead of the psuedoscientific terminology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course. The whole thing is tied in with [[Junk science]], i.e., the citing of unreproducible scientific studies to score political or ideological points. The first time I caught people doing this was over the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." (Maybe my interest stems from my last name, I dunno. ;-)

:::In the Western world, over the last few centuries, both the rich '''and''' the poor have become wealthier. Statistics prove this easily, thus disproving one of [[Marxism]]'s most central claims. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll never argue that homophobia is a phobia; just that it's a form of discrimination.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have any objective support for that view? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::One thing that is clear is that at least most of the time when the term is used it is not referring to a literal phobia of gay people. Setting aside whatever the intentions of the guy who invented the term may have been, I also don't believe there's any evidence that there are a meaningful number of people who have a phobia of homosexuality. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The term clearly was invented to give currency to the idea (a) that homosexuaity was normal, and (b) the rejection of homosexuality was abnormal, (c) that science supported this view. It was psuedoscience that was politicized. And the ''intent'' of its promulgators was always to attack critics. It was bad psuedoscience to begin with, because it urged discriminition and reprisals against people who, by any scientific definition, would be handicapped. My appologies to the promulators and purveyors of lies -- the chickens have come home to roost. The fraud has been exposed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reparative therapy==
Reparative therapy has no less than 3 ''primea facia'' serious flaws in its intial expansion, see [[Talk:Reparative therapy]]. We are not ready to split this off into a separate article yet. [[AFD Reparative therapy]] has been nominated for deletion because of the naked mirepresentation of scientific and technical sources and the editor warned. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Reparative_therapy] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo's edit ==

User Robledo edited the page to a concise, clear, sensible [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&oldid=137791 version] on April 30 2007. it has been rapidly reverted to the rather bizarre paranoid rant that has developed, which is a shame since it satisfied well known sensible conservative user Ed Poor, and a loony leftie like me. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have liked to have seen Robledo's version be accepted as a fine working outline for the article... maybe even the opening part of the article... and then expanded with well-sourced backing for each of the points that it makes. It seemed to me to state the points that needed to be made correctly, neutrally, and accurately. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Way to run away ==

So you lock it without discussion? Doesn't a shorter, more succint article make more sense?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think you were given a fair warning regarding your editing. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=136813&oldid=134839][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Reparative_therapy#Example_1][http://www.conservapedia.com/AFD_Reparative_therapy] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Archive warning==

Are we all ready for an archive? Maybe someone who hasn't participated as much in the discussion as I have, should do the archive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*Done... although I've participated quite a bit too. If anyone has a problem with where I made the cut, just fix it, I won't object. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
**Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== opposition to the homosexual agenda ==
I reverted an edit that claimed that the term was used for opposition to homosexuality, rather than the homosexual agenda. Does anyone have any comment? I see the term homophobia used for opposition to same-sex marriage and things like that, much more than homosexuality itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's a catch-all term. It's used to shut down debate. Like comparing someone to Hitler. It's emotionally manipulative. It reminds me of Orwell's [[Newspeak]] which was designed to prevent thought, rather to express it. It's part of the whole [[politically correct]] thing.

:I'm for freedom, and I think that [[homosexuality]] is the worst sort of slavery. Many young men are trapped in it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Are you serious? Every gay person I know has known either from childhood that they were "different" or discovered it on their own. Is trapped really the precise word? I know it is if you believe it is a choice, but I have never, not once, in my experience with gay people, met someone whose chosen it. That is the weirdest thing to me that people believe that. Just a thought here, but should we also have a page dedicated to [[straight civil unions]] and the [[straight agenda]]?[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo's version. ==

I reverted it, because he basicly rewrote the whole thing without bringing anything up on the talk page, after there was significant discussion to come up with the previous version. I am open to changing it, but i think that his version takes it a little too far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: First sentence - how is homophobia a pseudoscientific term? What claims to the scientific method does it make? Is it any less scientific than arachnophobia? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::What is a phobia? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The m-w says it well - "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" There are no claims to scientificness of the term. If you can find any material that claims a scientific backing of homophobia, that would be interesting to see. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Here's our Guide, the [http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm DSM IV]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm intrigued by the notion of having taken it "a little too far." The aims of my second revision were thus:

1. To make it clear that the term's common usage refers to a general opposition (not phobic or irrational), and is widely understood as such.

2. To acknowledge that even this "weak" formulation contains an implicit value judgement, akin to labelling someone racist or sexist, and that this angers principled opponents.

3. To acknowledge that violence and intimidation is a continuing issue and must be resisted by principled opponents ''as well as'' activists.

4. To do this in a clear, concise and fair manner.

The removal of the NARTH material is necessitated by aims 1 & 4, particularly with regards to fairness. This site has ample anti-homosexual entries already - it needs another like it needs a fire in its server room.

If anyone wishes to take specific issue with any of these stated aims, or identify how my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=144205&oldid=144021 second revision] failed to meet them, please do so below. Comments of support are also welcome.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but the whole problem stems from the disinformation campaign mounterd by gay activists in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s; they nakedly abused a scientific term to further a political agenda. The idea was obvious then, once homosexuality was "normalized", gay activists sought to slander opposition to homosexuality as "abnormal". Today, 2007, they '''cannot''' walk away from the factual, historical, record, claim they were misunderstood or something, while at the same time slandering people who both oppose the homosexual ageneda, and dissent on the idea that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, cards on the table. I personally hold homosexuality to be a trivial physical difference exhibited by a minority of the population, in much the same way that some people are left-handed or have blue eyes.

Your primary concern seems to be the history of the use of the term. I'm more concerned with how it's used now. Can we perhaps agree on two things:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals, and that the article needs to make this clear.

2. That the historical points you are trying to make might be better placed within articles which already serve that function, namely [[homosexual agenda]]?

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*''principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals''
:Please stop momentarilly; this itself may be a bigotted statement against heterosexuals. It automatically assumes "violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals" primarily comes from heterosexuals. Homosexuals have the highest rates of domestic violence of any socio economic group. Consenting homosexual relationships are often are fraught with violence. So before we begin accusing or condemning a large group of people of things they may not be guilty of, we need to lay some other cards on the table. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus wept, [[User:RobS|RobS]]. Let's try this again then:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject ''that violence and intimidation which is directed against homosexuals purely because they're homosexual'', and that the article needs to make this clear.

People get beaten up for being gay (killed in some countries). This is a Bad Thing. However great your antipathy towards homosexuality in general, I struggle to believe you'd wish to come down on the side of petty thuggery and I'm frankly baffled as to why you're prevaricating.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Valid point. And it needs to be made somewhere. But we're not making concession to the fact that gay rights activists have been extraordinarily deceptive and mean spirited with the use of this term since the day of its inception. And the recent Congressional action testifies to this [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9069&department=CFI&categoryid=papers] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Glad to have you on board re. violence and intimidation. This is a Good Thing. Oddly enough, the Bill your above link frets about so much confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, '''bodily injury''' to someone because of their (deep breath) actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. Why this can't be dealt with under existing laws, I don't know, but there's no mention of anti-gay speech at all. I suggest you [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~mdbswg2UuC:: read it].

I still think that the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in [[homosexual agenda]]. I'd be happy to link back to it within a short paragraph explaining the depth of feeling/anger involved.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is serious reservations about this legislation. See [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. See this qote from another citations,
::"So, if speech turns a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence for a state "hate crime" violation, just what might H.R. 1592 do on the federal level? As Rep. (and former Judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out on the House Judiciary Subcommittee, if passed, H.R. 1592 is going to put pastors in prison. Pointing to Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 2 (a):
:::(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, '''counsels''', commands, '''induces''' or procures its commission, is '''punishable as a principal'''. –18 USC Sec. 2
:::Pastor? Have you ever counseled from a biblical perspective or read from Roman 1? I Corinthians 6? Genesis 19? Leviticus 18 or 20? Then, if H.R. 1592 becomes law and someone who has attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances – you are "punishable as a principal," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55348]
::What is most appaling is, this blatant attack on the Constitutional rights of American citizens does not have a prayer of becoming law, because we know Bush will vetoe it. But Pelosi and company have now stated categorically what their priorities are -- this evidenctly is ''more important'' than getting troops out of Iraq, because they already have acted upon it. nevertheless, despite Pelosi & company ''knowing'' it will not become law in legislative session, we have another example of liberal [[Deceit]], only this time the [[Democratic Party]] leadership is deceiving gay rights activists, misleading them into beleiving their desire to violate the Constitutional rights of other American citizens has a chance to become law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, Rob, the real victims are the people discriminating against gays, and constantly making them feel like second-class citizens. Thanks for reminding us who the real victims are.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We're getting sidetracked here (though I'll check out this new Bill later). Can we return to the idea that I feel the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in [[homosexual agenda]]? Any specific criticisms you have of my second revision would be useful too.

:Good to see you back, AmesG ;)

:--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

'''UPDATE:''' H.R. 1592 still confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, '''bodily injury'''. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110j3ZUNT:: Read the blazing thing here!]

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I thought so. Good to be back Robledo!!!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::(a) it doesn't stand a chance (see [[Deceit]]), and (b) Evangelicals are up in arms about it. I got numerous cites over the past week. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== OMG ==

Sometimes I read articles here that make me wonder how people think. Sometimes I read articles that make me think, "these people are truly craxy!" This article is one of them. Wow. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::you are very intolerant.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Back on Topic... ==
I think this article fails because it addresses a usage of the term that almost no-one expresses: it's essentially an article against a straw-man. I've never heard of gay rights activists claiming that homophobia is a disease. I've always used the term to mean something analogous to "racism" or "sexism." The article should reflect common usage, not pointless venting against a straw man.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Why didn't they use "homosexism" when they invented the pseudoscientific pejoritive back in the 60s? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think linguistic dissection is a legitimate argument here, where the plain meaning in context is clearly the same.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS,

Unless you care to provide some specific criticism of my second revision, I plan to revert within the next few hours. You've had ample opportunity to comment constructively.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Response,
:*'' is widely understood as such.''
:understood by who? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Mostly by everyone except you. I have never heard a single gay rights activist argue that homophobia is a mental disorder. Nor have I heard argued that racism is a mental disorder. They both may be distastes based on "Principled Objection," sure, but that doesn't save either from being wrong. But not to get off topic, all I'm saying is that no one argues that homophobia is a mental disorder.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So please explain. Is homophobia a phobia? Is the term phobia commonly used to describe mental disorders? Is the term homophobia intended to be a derogatory term? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::It's intended to be a term as derogatory as "racism," and "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination that has arisen in a cultural context that wholly separates it from any independent definition of "phobia." -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We risk getting lost in trivial point by point arguments here. Please read my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=144205&oldid=144021 second revision] and provide a comprehensive reply detailing any specific objections you may have.

I thank you for your forthcoming co-operation in this matter.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Robledo, I like it, but while I agree with the last paragraph, I don't think it'd survive a revert war. Maybe "couch" it a bit, and then revert, please, because your definition is actually sensible!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cheers, fella :) I'm off for some dinner - we'll see if they've come up with anything substantive when I get back.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*'' rarely employed in its full "strong" sense, i.e. an irrational phobic response ''
:Rarely used? That's not the way many have ''heard'' it used for several decades now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I think the problem is that the "strong" sense is your perception, based on homophobia-phobia, if you will. Your fear of the term's use as a mental illness is an irrational fear that has no actual grounding.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, so we agree a pseudoscientific term has been misused to impugn innocent people, although you do not wish to discuss ''why'' the promulgators did this. The debate now is, why should we continue to contribute to the victimization of alleged "homophobes" to further a politcal agenda of activists proven to be [[Deceit|deceitful]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't think we agree that a pseudoscientific term has been misused. The term has never been understood or used - except by you - to class homophobia as a mental disease. It's just a buzzword, and a shortened & easier way to say "someone who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." Nothing more, nothing less.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Why didn't Mr. Weinberg & Al Goldstein, way back when, use "homosexism" then, if it means discriminition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Ask them! Probably because "homosexism" doesn't sound as good, and muddled the issue with women's rights, which as a movement was not doing so well at the time, and would no doubt do better on its own. Imputing an invidious reason is just paranoid.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Ah ha! So we have it right there! An admission they used a medical term to promote a politcal agenda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
You're imputing an invidious ''mens rea'' where there is none. The term has never been used, even implicitly, to suggest that homophobia is a mental disease. Please try not to be so paranoid. On the other end, aren't you just using a medical term - gender identity disorder - to further your own political agenda?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:When the American Psychiatric Association downgraded homosexuality from a [[mental illness]], the tables turned, and gay activists sought to characterize homosexuality as "normal" while impugning critics of the APA's decision as "abnormal", i.e. mentally deficient, or crazy. Gay activists sought to convince us only a crazy person would oppose homosexual activity, and the gay agenda. Today, as you and others have very well articulated, gay activists seek to criminalize what gay activists once considered a mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, you say that "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination and not a phobia. Do you have any sources to support that? It is contrary to my experience. Eg, some states have laws against discrimination, but none have laws against homophobia. Why is that, do you think? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:This is true what he says. It is not illegal to think, only to do. In some countries one cannot say that they think homosexuality is wrong, but no one says what you can believe in your heart.[[User:MoshiachNow|MoshiachNow]] 16:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
If you can find a gay rights activist saying that homophobia is a mental disease, then throw down. Otherwise you're just imagining it. And RSchlafly, I think that your note about the way that the law works is just right on: it recognizes that the only thing that gay rights workers are after is criminalizing discrimination, not though.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:What is a phobia? other than a mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Is arachnophobia a mental illness?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know; I thought it was a movie, but I never saw it. And please, spare me the details on it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Movie?! Huh. Anyways, not all "phobias" are mental illnesses, first of all, and second, I have yet to see you show me someone saying (other than you!) that homophobia is a mental disease.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Dr. Breiner in this article states discusses the problem with the term pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Right, Rob, he states the ''linguistic'' problem with it, but he doesn't prove that anyone has used the term to mean as much. It has never been used to mean mental illness, get a grip.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:What would you characterize "Christophobia" as? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Since I've never heard of it, I'd characterize it as ''another'' thing you made up.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Love the compromise. Great work Robledo!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T23:07:25Z

AmesG:

==TK's complaint about A-8 ==
That is an outright lie, and I have never said that.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:44, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:You did on IRC one night.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:But, you're right, it's not nice, so I deleted it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*You do know you are on probation, constantly, right Ames? Your lie about me, on that page, is typical Liberal assassination. Attacking other users, offering false witness and bullying by calling others out, not just Sysops, is a block-able offense. This is your very last warning. Pay attention. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
**I removed it. Good point.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:49, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Revisionism is a Liberal trait, and doesn't get you out from under on this. The fact that you dared to practice your "big lie" technique, and were caught, made you change it. Otherwise it would have remained in place as that same charge you made against me other places is still there. Please understand my utter sincerity in saying your next block will be the last one. Nothing personal, you understand. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
**Look, it's true, I just decided it's not nice. You did say that. To me. In IRC. You were like, "yeah, I've stopped contributing." I only deleted it because it hurts the essay to point fingers.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I've moved this here because it's between you & me, not Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*Removing something from anyone's user page is a blockable offense, Ames. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Apologies. Was trying to keep the discussion in the right place.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am deciding if I should block you, finally, for the last time, Ames. I never said that to you in IRC or anywhere else. I did once tell you that Sysops, and me specifically, could produce more articles if not from the constant arguements and vandals. That is nothing like you claim to have happened. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine :-). But, I honestly remember that. If I'm wrong, apologies, and since it's deleted, no harm no foul.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T23:01:49Z

AmesG:

Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:55:22Z

AmesG: Moved talk to here, TK, it doesn't involve Andy

Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:54:56Z

AmesG:

Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:47:39Z

AmesG:

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:47:28Z

AmesG: /* Point by Point to the Companion Article, Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia */

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] ==
# Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
# Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
# Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
# To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
# Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
# Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
# Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
# Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. Many administrators do not engage in productive article creation.
# Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
# Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
# Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).
# Creationists are willing to buck common knowledge, expert opinion, and the laws of physics just to get to the preferred result. They then claim to be objective.

== Independent Observations ==
# The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
# The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
# Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
# Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
# Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
# Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
# Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
# Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

For a counterpoint, please see [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]], to which this essay is (in its first part) a point-by-point response.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:46:33Z

AmesG: New page: ==TK's complaint about A-8 == That is an outright lie, and I have never said that.--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:44, 6 May 2007 (EDT) :You did...

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:45:47Z

AmesG: moving to talk

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] ==
# Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
# Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
# Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
# To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
# Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
# Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
# Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
# Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
# Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
# Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
# Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).
# Creationists are willing to buck common knowledge, expert opinion, and the laws of physics just to get to the preferred result. They then claim to be objective.

== Independent Observations ==
# The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
# The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
# Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
# Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
# Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
# Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
# Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
# Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

For a counterpoint, please see [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]], to which this essay is (in its first part) a point-by-point response.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:20:11Z

AmesG:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] ==
# Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
# Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
# Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
# To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
# Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
# Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
# Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
# Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
# Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
# Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
# Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).
# Creationists are willing to buck common knowledge, expert opinion, and the laws of physics just to get to the preferred result. They then claim to be objective.

== Independent Observations ==
# The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
# The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
# Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
# Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
# Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
# Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
# Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
# Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

For a counterpoint, please see [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]], to which this essay is (in its first part) a point-by-point response.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:19:18Z

AmesG:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal behavior]] and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

# Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected. That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints. Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.
# Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives. Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]. Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.
# Name-calling, particularly as a [[Parthian shot]], is overused by liberals. In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know."
# Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???
# A surprising absence of reliance on logic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority. In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.
# An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of [[Wikipedia]] co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position ''after'' his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
# A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the [[rules]], which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].
# A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the [[rule]] against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits. In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.
# Strident objections to the point in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to ''quantifying'' it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
# Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
# There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.
# Liberals often expressed decidely liberal viewpoints as "common usage".

Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.

For a counterpoint, see [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]].

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:08:05Z

AmesG: /* Point by Point to the Companion Article, Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia */

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] ==
# Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
# Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
# Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
# To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
# Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
# Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
# Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
# Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
# Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
# Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
# Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).
# Creationists are willing to buck common knowledge, expert opinion, and the laws of physics just to get to the preferred result. They then claim to be objective.

== Independent Observations ==
# The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
# The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
# Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
# Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
# Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
# Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
# Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
# Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T22:06:28Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:02:43Z

AmesG:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] ==
# Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
# Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
# Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
# To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
# Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
# Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
# Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
# Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
# Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
# Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
# Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).

== Independent Observations ==
# The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
# The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
# Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
# Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
# Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
# Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
# Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
# Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:02:00Z

AmesG:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] ==
#. Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
#. Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
#. Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
#. To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
#. Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
#. Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
#. Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
#. Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
#. Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
#. Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
#. Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).

== Independent Observations ==
#. The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
#. The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
#. Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
#. Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
#. Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
#. Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
#. Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
#. Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:01:41Z

AmesG:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia]] ==
#. Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
#. Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
#. Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
#. To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
#. Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
#. Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
#. Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
#. Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
#. Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
#. Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
#. Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).

== Independent Observations ==
#. The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
#. The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
#. Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
#. Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
#. Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
#. Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
#. Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
#. Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:01:17Z

AmesG:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia]] ==
#. Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
#. Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
#. Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
#. To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
#. Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
#. Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
#. Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
#. Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
#. Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
#. Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
#. Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).

== Independent Observations ==
#. The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
#. The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
#. Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
#. Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
#. Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
#. Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
#. Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
#. Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-06T22:00:47Z

AmesG: New page: Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge: == Point by Point to the Compan...

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

== Point by Point to the Companion Article, [[Essay:Liberal_Behavior_on_Conservapedia]] ==
#. Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.
#. Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.
#. Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."
#. To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.
#. Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article [[Faith]], which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the [[Carbon dating]] page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."
#. Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, [[deceit]]. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.
#. Attribution of vandalism to liberals ''only'', and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.
#. Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see [[stereotype]]), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. [[user:TK|TK]], for example, admits to not writing any articles, only talking & blocking.
#. Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.
#. Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.
#. Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on [[star|stars]]. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see ''supra'' for further commentary).

== Independent Observations ==
#. The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
#. The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
#. Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
#. Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
#. Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
#. Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
#. Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
#. Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as [[reparative therapy]] are no better.

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T21:31:09Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T21:28:08Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T21:24:34Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T21:19:40Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T20:13:00Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T20:08:45Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Olive branch

2007-05-06T20:00:48Z

AmesG:

An olive branch is a symbol of peace recognized worldwide.

In Ancient Greece, the olive branch was a symbol of bounty and victory. Its association with plenty comes from the essential character of the olive to the Greek economy - without it, Greek life would have been utterly lessened, and dramatically different. The branch was also awarded to [[Olympic]] victors.

In Ancient Rome, it was one of many plans with symbolic significance. As the ''acanthus'' plan symbolized order, and the oak branch victory, the olive branch symbolized peace.

Its origin in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the branch brought by a dove returning to [[Noah's Ark]] after the [[Deluge]].

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-06T19:57:42Z

AmesG: /* Back on Topic... */

Jedi

2007-05-06T19:49:30Z

AmesG:

== ''Star Wars'' ==
In the ''[[Star Wars]]'' series, a ''Jedi'' is a [[Force (Star Wars)| Force]]-user aligned with the light side. The Force is a life-force that binds the universe together, and may be used to change events in the world at large, by manipulating the underlying nature of life. In ''Star Wars'', the great power that this entails has divided Force-users diametrically: those who favor its use for good align with the Light, while those that even dabble in evil, inevitably are tempted by this slight variance to fall utterly to the Dark side. To walk in the Light, as a Jedi, is a strict way of life, any deviation from which is considered a grave failing, and is a challenge for Star Wars characters to live up to.

=== Jedi History ===
The Jedi Order has been thrown into conflict many times in the Star Wars universe, more often than not with the [[Sith]], who represent the Dark side of the Force, and the usage of the Force for the doing of evil or selfish acts. While the Jedi are an Order in and of themselves, and the "guardians of peace" in the Galactic Republic, the [[Sith]] are less an organization than a motivating ideal. It has been suggested that the "true Sith" can never be defeated, but must be wrestled with by each new generation of Jedi in turn. In the Star Wars movies, the Jedi Order disintegrates in [[Episode III: Revenge of the Sith]], to be reconstituted only in [[Episode VI: Return of the Jedi]], by the lone remaining Jedi Knight, Luke Skywalker.

George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, originally planned successor movies - Episodes VIII through X - to explain the rebirth of the Jedi Order. Since the movies have since fallen through, much of the Jedi Order's "history" and "future" are illumed through licensed products such as books and games. [[Knights of the Old Republic]], the 2003 "[[Game of the Year]]," and its sequel, explored Jedi history in this fashion. Such products, where approved by George Lucas, are deemed "canonical" by fans, or in other words, "official," or what Lucas would himself write or explain, given the time and funding.

=== Jedi Characteristics ===

Jedi use "[[lightsabers]]," or swords emitting beams of pure light, to deflect energy weapon fire and as an offensive weapon. The lightsaber is a symbol of peace and refinement, according to Obi-Wan Kenobi, less casual and haphazard than traditional weapons, and implying a commitment to the finesse and perfect of form required by duelists and light Jedi alike.

== Effects on the Real World ==
The ''Jedi Way'' is a fictional religion/philosophy from the [[Star Wars]] movie series. In a recent census in [[Great Britain]], pranksters claimed "Jedi" as their religion in hope of getting it recognized as a legitimate faith.

Jedi has been recognized as an official religion in Canada, with approximately 1.2% of the population claiming to be members of the Jedi faith.{{fact}}