Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-06-03T10:44:07Z

BarrySherman: /* Achievements */

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? [[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]]

:Excerpt:
::"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Advisor_Sideshow.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::You may be missing the point; [[Nelson Rockefeller]] is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.

::::So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::::You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::::The question was answered point blank, duh.
::::::BTW, is there a hint of anti-[[Catholicism]] in your user name? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::: The more [[Richard Nixon]] relied on [[Henry Kissinger]], the less [[conservative]] Nixon became. [[Conservatives]] always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason [[Ronald Reagan]] resisted the intense [[liberal]] pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"

Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman

: Bush does not use his credentials to claim any intellectual superiority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

And? That article is obviously an attempt to make liberals look intellectually inferior. - Barry Sherman

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----[[user:grah|grah]] 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? ==

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of physics...is NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?
He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology.
Really strange ideas here Aschlafly.
Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein.
How about -
George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where [[Galileo]]s trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed [[Liberal]], and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Huh? ==

Kerry: Fought for his country
Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net
Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost?
Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious
Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that?
Tribe: A professor at Harvard
McNamara: successfully managed the world bank
Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?)
Jon Stewart: No evidence at all
Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses"
Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well
Foucault: See Jon stewart
Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom?
Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature
Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless
Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush
Darwin: How? Give evidence
Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense.
Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?

Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED

It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a [[Nobel Prize]]. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the [[Nobel Prize]] is merely an award given by [[Liberal]]s to other [[Liberal]]s. Notice how the [[Liberal]] engages in the act of [[Deceit]] and the use of [[Profanity]], a favoured [[Liberal Style]] in debates. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gore Link ==

A slight problem- the link posted for Al Gore actually argues that he ''didn't'' claim that he invented the internet. --Dollfuss

: You're right: the link was to liberal claptrap. I've replaced it with Gore's actual quote and a link to the transcript.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-06-01T14:33:41Z

BarrySherman: /* Achievements */

== Question ==

''Examples of not-quite-the-best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments''

Who would you say are the best intellectual promoters of liberal arguments? And who would you say are real, rather than pseudo, intellectuals?

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 06:32, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll clarify. What that means is "not-quite-intellectual". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's right-hand man, is a liberal? By what standard? [[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]]

:Excerpt:
::"When Rockefeller lost the Republican nomination to Nixon, Kissinger told Dean Brown, an American diplomat, that he would have to abstain. "I could never vote for Nixon, of course, and that clown Humphrey would never make a President." Publicly he called Nixon "the most dangerous" of the candidates." [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Advisor_Sideshow.html] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::Anyone that didn't want to vote for Nixon is a liberal? Really? Don't you want to spend a bit more time thinking about this one? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:39, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::You may be missing the point; [[Nelson Rockefeller]] is considered a liberal Republican; indeed "Rockefeller Republican" is still the common term used to refer to liberal Republicans. Henry Kissinger was a Rockefeller Republican, and was one of Nelson Rockefeller's closest advisers. When Nixon beat Rocky for the '68 GOP nomination, Kissinger was a survivor of Rocky's organization who made to the White House. Kissinger voted against Nixon in the primaries.

::::So the idea that Nixon & Kissinger are Siamese twins is just, once again, pure liberal crap. Nothing surprising in that, really. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::::You should quit playing dumb and deal with the conversation directly, rather than pussy-footing around irrelevant gibberish. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 20:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::::The question was answered point blank, duh.
::::::BTW, is there a hint of anti-[[Catholicism]] in your user name? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::: The more [[Richard Nixon]] relied on [[Henry Kissinger]], the less [[conservative]] Nixon became. [[Conservatives]] always knew that Kissinger was not conservative, and for that reason [[Ronald Reagan]] resisted the intense [[liberal]] pressure to include Kissinger as an adviser.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== Achievements ==
I know that this is an essay, and it reflects your personal opinion, which you are of course entitled to. I'm confused about why you say that the people on your list are "short on intellectual achievements." You list, in order,
*A U.S. Senator/Presidential candidate
*A U.S. Senator/Vice President/Presidential candidate/lecturer
*A Governor/President of the United States
*An Oxford faculty member/influential scientist
*A Harvard faculty member/influential scientist/author
*A Harvard Law faculty member/influential expert on constitutional law
*A U.S. Secretary of Defense/President of World Bank
*A Nobel laureate/U.S. Secretary of State/major player in US foreign policy for a decade
*A successful theoretical physicist who led the effort to develop the most important weapon in world history
*A popular comedian and talk show host (not sure who seriously considers Jon Stewart an intellectual per se, but he does provide social commentary, so I'll give you a point for this one)
*An M.I.T. faculty member/successful philosopher, author
*A successful economist who was given the title of Baron for his work
Most people would probably call that a pretty impressive list of achievements for "wannabes or pseudo-intellectuals."
While I understand that you don't agree with a lot of those men, it doesn't mean that they haven't accomplished anything. Arguments against their ideologies would be more effective if they were made without trying to blow off their achievements as insignificant.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 23:26, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

::This essay tells us more about the author than it does about the subject. Is [[ad hominem]]ism not a Liberal [[Template:Attack page|activity]]?

:::''Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.''

:::''And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:''
:::''for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.''
:::(Matthew 7)

::Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 08:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: The above [[liberal]] protesteth too much to the insight of this essay.

: Bayes illustrates the [[liberal]] love of bureaucracy and meaningless "achievements". He does not list a true intellectual accomplishment. Nothing in his list advanced knowledge or provided any meaningful benefit to others. Instead, as in the [[Wizard of Oz]], Bayes attaches great significance to honors awarded by other [[liberals]]. Try to find a true intellectual achievement by any of the listed [[liberals]]. Can't be done, so they strive for acclaim by fellow [[liberals]] instead.

: JSmith, you win the prize for playing the hypocrite card, which is so overused by [[liberals]]. You even cite the [[Bible]]. Are you a real devotee to the [[Bible]]???

: Thanks, you gave me good fodder to add to the [[liberal style]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Shakespearian references aside, let me try to understand your reasoning. You say that receiving Nobel Prizes, becoming widely recognized in an academic field, or becoming President of the United States does not represent an intellectual achievement. You then say that nothing on the list above advanced knowledge or provided meaningful benefit. That position is simply absurd. By your standards, Reagan, Teller, and the Founding Fathers aren't intellectuals either. Then, when I point out your untenable position, you attack me for my so-called "love of bureaucracy" and compare my opinions to the Wizard of Oz story.

Your response says more than you wanted it to. This essay really is a demonstration of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy; you selectively choose people you disagree with, then claim that they're not "real" intellectuals, and so, of course, they must be wrong. It's only a rephrasing of "These people are stupid, so they're wrong." You then choose to mock me and JSmith on this page, again showing your tendency to use personal attacks.

What is an example of what you would consider a "true" intellectual achievement? Do all "true" intellectuals also happen to be conservatives? Can any liberal hope to be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 11:22, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to protesteth too much. What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], for example, or his "tear down this wall" speech. [[Teller]]'s H-Bomb. The Founding Father's [[U.S. Constitution]]. The [[liberal]] obsession with meaningless bureaucratic honors, often awarded by fellow [[liberals]], is baffling, a silly as the awards given in the [[Wizard of Oz]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so those are examples of what you consider to be intellectual achievements. I agree. Now, why do you consider Teller's role in hydrogen bomb development an achievement, but Oppenheimer's role in fission bomb development is not? I see you've added to the essay, and you claim that Oppenheimer isn't an intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Tell me, how many Nobel Prizes did Teller, one of your examples of intellectuals, win? I'll also point out that Kissinger DID win a Nobel Prize, and yet he appears on this list. You seem to want it both ways--you are trying to claim Oppenheimer is not an intellectual because he doesn't have a Nobel Prize, but then you say that any prize that was actually awarded is meaningless because it was awarded by "liberals."

Your remarks about others on the list are just as dubious in their relevance. Reagan was an actor before he entered politics; does that diminish his later intellectual accomplishments? I don't think so. Similarly, the disparaging "you got bad grades in college, so you can't accomplish anything worthwhile" comments next to some of the names are not appropriate.

I'd still like to hear your answer to this question: Can anyone whom you label as "liberal" be a "true" intellectual?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:''Add-on:'' I also don't see how being a privileged youth disqualifies one from being an intellectual. The majority of the scientific establishment was at one time composed of the nobility, since they were the people with the time and money for such pursuits. The merit of any body of knowledge is not dependent on the personal circumstances of its discoverer.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you think the [[liberal]]s on the list achieved something intellectually, then just tell us what that was. Winning a gold star from a fellow liberal doesn't cut it. Instead, this group is notable for being intellectual wannabees, such as claiming credit for the internet or plagiarizing or self-promotion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the account on Snopes about what was actually said with respect to Al Gore and the Internet?[http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't have to. I remember reading the transcript, and I think I even saw the interview at the time. Gore tried to take credit for the internet. I didn't say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So you reserve license to publicly degrade others, and then give me the task of doing your research for you? You are the author of this essay, in which you essentially call your political opponents stupid and overrated. The burden of proof is on YOU to defend your claims and refute the achievements of these respected people, since YOU are making those statements. So far, your justifications have been along the lines of "his parents had money" and "he got bad grades in college." Did you know Clinton was a Rhodes scholar?

In any case, I've already provided an example: Oppenheimer led the effort to develop the atomic bomb. You credit Teller for H-bomb work, but not Oppenheimer for A-bomb work. How do you justify that position?

I would still like to know: Can someone be both "liberal" and an "intellectual"?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:39, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, you continue to cite [[liberal]] awards, like "Rhodes scholar." You don't seem to grasp the point here, or you don't want to. I'm talking about true intellectual achievement, not resume building stuff.

:: Someone should do an article on [[Heather Wilson]], which includes her past achievements. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: [[Teller]] did real [[physics]]. [[Oppenheimer]] was the manager at [[Los Alamos]] who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. Please attempt to understand the difference.

: Your question about whether someone can be [[liberal]] and a true intellectual is beyond the scope of this essay. It's a rare combination at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your response to that question. I do think it's relevant to this essay, since the inclusion of conservatives on this "pseudo-intellectuals" list, as well as liberals on any "intellectuals" list, would provide evidence that this is not just an ''ad hominem'' attack.

I pointed out the Rhodes scholarship because you portray Clinton as a failure in his studies. Whatever political aspects of the Rhodes scholarship application you believe are present, I think you can agree that they are not awarded to people who are dolts. It seems that your definition of a "liberal award" is any award won by someone you disagree with.

With regard to Oppenheimer/Teller, I suggest you become better acquainted with physics and the history of the Manhattan Project before you trash Oppenheimer as merely a "manager". The [[Born-Oppenheimer approximation]], the [[Oppenheimer-Phillips process]], and the [[Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit]] are ideas within quantum physics and astrophysics that are named for him. For the Manhattan Project, he did important calculations relating to fast neutrons. So, despite your claims to the contrary, he was in fact very successful at "real" physics, in your terms. You would do well to refrain from denigrating Oppenheimer in terms of his science; it's just not going to work.

I reiterate my claim that you are inconsistent in lauding Teller while smearing Oppenheimer. It is becoming more apparent that you are putting folks on this list simply because you disagree with their politics and not because they actually have intellectual failures.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:Dear Mr. Schlafly. Thank you for the prize. I hope my [[Bible]] citation was correct. It would be a shame if I quoted something, for example [[Shakespeare]], and got it horribly wrong. I'm glad you found my contribution useful. It is a pleasure to have been of help. Oh by the way, would you be so kind as to list the intellectual achievements of your own which enable you to sit on such a high pedestal pontificating about the achievements or lack thereof by intellectual wannabees and pseudo-intellectuals. Godspeed [[User:JSmith|JSmith]] 09:44, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Well done, JSmith, you exhibited two examples of [[liberal style]], now ranked #7 on Google searches, in just one sentence:

::* #7) over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy
::* #25) using non sequiturs in argument

:: Surely you don't think that it's unfair to question whether someone promoted as an intellectual really is one. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Mr Smith is unfortunately no longer able to continue this discussion. TK [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AIpblocklist&action=search&limit=&ip=JSmith blocked] him. Assumedly for holding this discussion. Would you like to comment sir? [[User:BLocke|BLocke]] 10:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

"Richard Dawkins lasted only 2 years teaching at University of California, Berkeley, a mere lecturer at Oxford until a wealthy ally donated a professorship for him"

Oh, a mere lecturer at Oxford? And Bush's resume is so much more impressive than that. - Barry Sherman

==Motivation==

An interesting essay Mr.Schlafly. I'm curious to know your postion on the corollary of your listed arguments, i.e., do you believe that:

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Women should give birth to every baby conceived
*Wars should be fought until a combatant is completely destroyed, without pause for negotiation
*The best thing for humanity would be to increase the worldwide supply of armaments ad infinitum
*Discrimination cannot be quantified
*Women are inferior to men
*Homosexuals deserve no freedoms
*The Government should make no attempt to reduce poverty

[[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: After your first two, your "corollaries" are actually severe distortions of the points in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, let me try another 'corollarization', if you'll pardon the concoction! Please bear with me, I am not interested in twisting your words, merely clarifying your position.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership assures a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*Ceasefires are pointless
*Arms limitation treaties are pointless
*Discrimination cannot be quantified by viewing outcomes
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government should make no further attempt to reduce poverty

Is this better? [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your "corollarization" is still twisted, of course, particularly on points 2 ("assures"), 4-5 ("are pointless"), 6 ("cannot be quantified"), and 9 ("no further attempt"). But you're right with point 1, 3 and 7-8, and increased gun ownership does decrease crime, including violent crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's another try - and thanks for your pointers.

*Cutting taxes increases Government revenue
*Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society
*Abortion harms health
*In war, ceasefires have no useful effect
*Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect
*Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only
*Genders are not equal
*African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals
*The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

I'm having a hard time writing corollaries of the ceasefire, arms treaty, and poverty topics, so please forgive me as I clumsily try and get closer to your position. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 14:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, a user by the name of 'TK' has alerted me to your 90/10 rule. However, I pointed out that I obviously cannot contribute to your essay, since it is completely yours. Should I stop discussing your essay? I should point out that what I was hoping to do was clarify the corollaries to your points so that I could write an essay entitled Conservative Intellectualism, which would then state clearly defined positions held by conservative intellectuals. I can't write that article until we agree on the definitions, obviously. Should I listen to TK and stop, or do you wish me to continue on my path? It is your essay, and, I believe, your site, so I will abide by whatever you say. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:26, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*Do not try to insert [[deceit]] here, OldFaithful. I alerted as well as welcomed you. Most of us manage to do both kinds of posts, and I am sure after a while, you will be better able to multi-task as well! Carry on. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 15:41, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm not trying to use deceit, I can assure you. I'm only interested in clarifying - to the agreement of Mr.Schlafly - the position this essay takes. Defining the corollary of an argument is usually a very good way to define the argument itself, I find. Thanks for your understanding, TK. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 15:44, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, the point of the 90/10 [[rule]] is to ensure some productive activity in addition to discussion. As you can see, there are many other entries here (over 16,000) that we can all improve while we continue this discussion. Thanks much and we do welcome you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, I have started a discussion on the page [[Talk:Essay:Conservative Intellectualism]] about replacing the liberally written content there with material that is more suitable to this forum. I have pasted in our corollaries from today - the ones you were happy with - and would love if you could particpate in the building of that article too. Yours, [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 21:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Response ==

In reply to your list above:

* Cutting taxes increases Government revenue

Right, assuming current levels of taxation. See [[Laffer Curve]].

* Increased gun ownership helps towards a safer society

Right. No one seriously disputes this. See [[John Lott]].

* Abortion harms health

Right. No one seriously disputes this, just as no one credibly denies that childbirth is good for health.

* In war, ceasefires have no useful effect

True when faced with a determined enemy, like the [[communist]] North Vietnamese.

* Arms limitation treaties have no useful effect

True when faced with a [[deceit]]ful enemy, like the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]].

* Discrimination cannot be fully quantified by viewing outcomes only

Obviously true.

* Genders are not equal

Obviously true.

: While it is obvious that the genders are not the same, what are the implications of this statement? Should the [[19th amendment]] be undone? Is unequal pay for the same work fair? What other implications that I'm not familiar with are there? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:55, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:*It was obvious to me that Andy was talking about the physiological differences, not social. --[[User:TK|şŷ�?ô�?-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣ�?ёаќǃ]] 16:59, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If that is the case, then that needs to be said. All of the other points in this list are about social issues, government policies and the like. To say that the genders are not equal in this context seems to be to be very much about the social differences of the genders. This is especially true when reading up on some of the conservative speakers and their positions on gender equality. Phyllis Schlafly statements about the equal rights ammendment[http://thinkexist.com/quotes/phyllis_schlafly/], and Ann Coulter has written on reconsidering the 19th ammendment[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a7cb4c3104.htm]. What is meant by "Genders are not equal - obviously true" needs to be spelled out so there cannot be any misinterpretation of the message that is intended. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I do think that the physiological differences between men and women - which are clearly undeniable - do have an impact on issues of pay. I don't believe, for example, that it is fair to pay women soldiers the same as the men soldiers, as they cannot carry as much weight or make themselves as useful to the unit due to their reduced physicality. Mind you, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that women shouldn't be anywhere in the miltary other than desk jobs at home in the US - but that's another issue. [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:14, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

* African Americans are more deserving of civil rights than homosexuals

Right, and many African Americans are rightly offended by [[liberal]] attempts to analogize the two.

* The Government is not fully capable of reducing poverty

Obviously true. Even [[Jesus]] observed that there will unfortunately always be poverty.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

A fantastic response Mr.Schlafly, I'm very grateful indeed. A few questions come to mind from your responses, and they're all about trying to write 'rules' or points of policy that do not require conditions. Conditionals ("when facing a determined enemy") cloud meaning, and if they're required, it shows lack of strength in the statement. I'm trying to find the simplest, generalised statements that work.

*Perhaps we should say "Every woman should give birth to children", since it's good for health?
*Since almost every enemy likely thinks of themselves as 'determined', what is a good general policy statement on ceasefires that does not include that conditional statement? If ceasefires are useless against determined enemy, do they have some use against less determined enemies? Maybe ceasefires shouldn't be a rule, if we cannot be clear about them without conditional statements?
*And since any combatant will be deceitful in war, how can we clarify the statement on arms treaties? "Arms treaties are never a good idea"?
*"Homosexuals do not deserve civil rights". Is that a reasonable extrapolation of your point?
*Is it a reasonable extrapolation of the last point to say that "Poverty is uneradicable". Even though that might be wrong, I'm trying to get these statements to be snappy soundbites like that. It really helps to convey the message to younger people.

Looking forward to your thoughts, I remain, [[User:OldFaithful|OldFaithful]] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

: OldFaithful, your restatements of the points are distortions. We don't do that here. Not a single one of your restatements conveys the clear, straightforward, and undeniable truth in the original statements. Instead, your restatements either marginalize the point so that it loses meaning (e.g., by omitting [[abortion]]), or makes assumptions that are untrue (e.g., every enemy is "determined" and "deceitful", or that homosexuals "do not deserve civil rights" which of course they already enjoy like everyone else).

: The 90/10 [[rule]] against endless talk is enforced. Please abide by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh I certainly intend to, I will revert to the last set of definitions you were happy with and will write the article. Please excuse my new name as I was blocked by TK by accident. [[User:NewFaithful|NewFaithful]] 20:18, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm very confused. I keep getting banned fomr this site. All I have been doing is trying to write a good, conservative article as an essay on Conservative Intellectualism. But now I see that my comments are being removed - I don't know why - from this Talk page, and also now from the aricle I was attmpeting to argue FOR!. I think I am being confused for others perhaps? Contributing to this site is anything but easy. [[User:Worshipper|Worshipper]] 23:57, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

===real intellectuals===
i think it would be helpful for this discussion if we had another essay about real intellecuals. liberal, conservative, or moderate. there are a few examples given on this page, but i think more might answer questions about who is included and who isn't. the founding fathers are a good example. i would be against people being included just for being well known conservatives. i admire much about george w bush, for example, but i wouldn't call him an "intellectual". he didn't run as one, and we didn't elect him for that. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

*And yet his college record, and ''two degrees'', from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:12, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

i'm not sure "smarter than kerry" makes him an intellectual. also, jon stewart should probably be removed. he's an entertainer. i don't think he or anyone else really makes much of a claim that he's an intellectual. [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]

== Clinton ==
''may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown, never released his grades, no original work or ideas''

'May have'? Did he or didn't he? Just 'may have' is gossip. And where did Clinton ever claim (or have it claimed for him) to be an intellectual? Indeed, how many US presidents, Rep or Dem, fit into that category? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

==I couldn't resist==

I'm sorry, but why on earth is that considered to be a genuine work on this wiki? The whole thing is nuts. Loopdy loopder. Just because someone declares themselves a Liberal doesn't mean they claim to be an intellectual. Its flattering you would think so much of us, but thats just nuts. No, the problem here is that people assume so much. And Gandhi? Give me a break.

What about the great Liberal intellectuals - Galileo, Einstein, Mandela, Lincoln, The Dalai Lama? What are they, accidents? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

A work which cannot be defended on its merits is a work that shouldn't be defended at all. This should be deleted and the creator should apologise for marking the world with this insanity. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 06:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps some rest? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== "intellectual wannabees or pseudo-intellectuals" ==

Okay, what on Earth are Noam Chomsky (guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is quite influential in theoretical Computer Sciences) and John Maynard Keynes (quoting CP: "His ideas were highly influential leading to him generally being credited as being one of the founding fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics.") doing on a list of pseudo-intellectuals?

These are people who vastly influenced their field of study with their intellectual contributions. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:19, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any question regarding Keynes liberal intellectual credentials; libs have even co-opted him posthumously in the gay rights movement. Chomsky is more less the undisputed chief grand pubba guru of modern liberal intellectualism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Your answer doesn't quite seem to fit to my question. How does their political view lessen their contributions? I'm not arguing that they're conservative, liberal or whatever, but why are they "pseudo-intellectual"? Here is something Andy said on this very page:
{{cquote|What constitutes a true intellectual achievement is obvious: an insight, a remarkable writing or speech, an idea, an invention, a proof, a concept, an advance in knowledge, etc.}}
::Being credited with the title "founding father of modern macroeconomics" and having had a remarkable impact on theoretical Computer Sciences count as such intellectual achievements in my eyes. Are you saying they're not? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This whole section is pretty dumb and should be deleted. I don't think whoever authored it understands what a psuedo-intellectual is. Harvard professors and world class mathematicians are not psuedo-intellectuals, they are the very definition of intellectuals. ----[[user:grah|grah]] 09:45 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal intellectualism and the Cold War==
Here's a good description of liberal intellectualism that caused the [[Cold War]]:

:"There is a thing we might call the cult of intellectualism, which includes a good many people who are not intellectuals. It embraces a number of top-lofty souls who imagine they swim in some more luminous ether than the harsh air near the ground of reality. In many it is little more than a pose. There were others who saw in [[Russia]] a mixture of good and bad elements and who imagined that, by some alchemy, the bad might one day be eliminated and the good assume the mastery. At the bottom of this notion was the conviction that society had gotten out of hand, that the modern society contains so many hostile elements that there is no way to order and peace and finally to the good life for all, save under the assumption of control by the "experts" to produce a [[planned society]]. These people had managed to dress up and perfume this notion in such a way that they could support it without even being called [[socialist]]s. They saw in Russia a historic and dramatic experiment to produce the good life through a planned society. It was a first trial, full of missteps and pitfalls. They have been willing to excuse the mistakes and even the cruelties of the experimenters in Moscow, hoping that out of it might come something that the world could use.

:"They indignantly deny the imputation of [[communism]]. They do not even like to be called socialists. The term "planned society" appeals to them, expresses their philosophy without the ugly proletarian stain of the socialist or Communist labels. The remodeling of society is a job not for the ranting soapboxers of Union Square, but for the engineers, the scientists, the philosophers and the experts generally. It is in reality socialism in cap and gown or even in a high hat and frock coat. The truth is that in certain quarters it had simply become out of style to believe in the thing called capitalism. It is not the style to believe in communism. But it is a mark of the large mind not to be narrowly intolerant of communism, and among these gentry it had come to be a little vulgar to defend capitalism. When we add to this the fact that the organized Communists and near-Communists in America had something like a million votes to deliver in critical polling places in a few industrial states, we can begin to perceive how a mixture of lofty philosophy and low politics could produce their strange tolerance for [[Stalin]] and his gang.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

==Kerry==

Kerry was a priviledged youth? What's that got to do with anything? I guess you could say the same about George W. Bush. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:oh no...a kid just got tasered over this very question....[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Both were ''privileged''. How one approaches life, and one's conclusions about most things, are shaped by that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Then why even mention it? Do you mention Bill Clinton came from a poor background? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:45, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== a few comments ==

Are there any references for your revelation that J Robert Oppenheimer "just sorted the mail" or however you put it? I have read a couple of his biographies and that detail, if present, was obscured with all of the details on his research and experiments in developing the atomic bomb. Carl Sagan, quoted from conservapedia's own article on him, was a professor of astronomy at Cornell. His theories, whether you agree with them or not, do have scientific and mathematical backing. Disagreeing with someone's theories does not make that person a "not quite intellectual" as you put it. And finally, Stephen Hawking is widely considered to be the smartest person, if not in the world, then definitely within the scientific community. And although his initial theory was incorrect, by his own admittance, he and others eventually corrected it into what I believe is currently the most accepted theory. Very rarely is a scientific theory correct on the first try, especially on something as difficult to study as a black hole. So I'm not quite sure how/why Hawking qualifies as a "not quite intellectual". --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 18:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? ==

Stephen Hawking, despite his worldwide-recognized advancements in the fields of theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity, as well as his contributions to other subfields of physics...is NOT an intellectual? I'm baffled by that claim, as I never even contemplated that someone would argue against his being considered an intellectual, if not one of the most brilliant physicists of our time. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I also think this is incredibly bizzare. Hawking was wrong about black holes? So?
He was right about Hawking radiation (hence the name)and is considered one of the world leading astrophysicists by liberals and conservatives. And Carl Sagan made great strides in exobiology.
Really strange ideas here Aschlafly.
Darwin a poor student? So was Einstein.
How about -
George W Bush, privilaged youth, poor student, ran several companies into the ground, bailed out by his father, can barely speak coherent english, has some of the worst approval ratings of any president and is disliked the world over.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:35, 20 February 2008 (EST)
::I have to agree that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, who's taken the human mind farther than many of his peers. I disagree with the parts of his work that assume a billion-billion whatever year old universe, but I pride myself on being able to look past that to the true genius, not to mention the heroism he demonstrates on a daily basis for overcoming his crippling condition. The man is an American treasure and a credit to his nation.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:56, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Ahhhhh dude, Stephen Hawking was born in Oxford, England. I'm not sure you could call him an American tresure. Incidently, interesting side note - Hawking was born on the anniversary of Galileo's death 300 years earlier.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:But he teaches at CalTech (our treasure, credit to Britain).-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough :-)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 18:09, 20 February 2008 (EST)

::: I'm not sure who stuck that bit in about Hawking. I'd have to check the history. I certainly agree that he's an inspiration on a personal level, and thus would be reluctant to criticism him. But, rising above emotion, when someone claims to be an intellectual, as Hawking's supporters certainly claim about him, it's fair game to probe the accuracy of the claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 20 February 2008 (EST)

checking the accuracy of his claims is difficult when you consider his trade is theoretical physics. You cant say he is not an intellectual when you consider his lifes work and the respect he has worldwide.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 17:07, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: The point the entry is to show how liberal-promoted intellectuals are not what liberals claim they are. I'm fine with taking Hawking out unless and until someone does more research. He's not a leading [[liberal]] as far as I know, so he probably should not be on the list anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Personally I have done a lot of reading by Hawking and about Hawking and never once is his political leanings been mentioned nor have I heard of him being espoused primarily by liberals or conservatives. I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree with his intellectual capability. I remove it now and if anyone could prove he should be on this list I would be interested to hear their argument for inclusion. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 20:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

When Hawking met the Pope in Rome in the 1990s, he demanded to see where [[Galileo]]s trial took place. Although the Pope was an elderly and physically unwell man, Hawking had no problem putting him through distress to meet his ends. There is no doubt, from anyone who has studied Hawking and his political positions, that he is an avowed [[Liberal]], and as a Liberal 'academic', deserves to be mentioned in the list. There is no such thing as an intelligent Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Huh? ==

Kerry: Fought for his country
Gore: Actually look at the link you provided on the 'net
Bill Clinton: "may have virtually". So he might have almost?
Dawkins: Lecturer at Oxford is still very prestigious
Stephen Jay Gould: Any evidence for that?
Tribe: A professor at Harvard
McNamara: successfully managed the world bank
Oppenheimer: was key in developing the bomb (so what about leaks?)
Jon Stewart: No evidence at all
Chomsky: Actually, he did make significant advances in linguistics, not just "guesses"
Keynes: Policies still used today, influenced Hayek and Friedman as well
Foucault: See Jon stewart
Rachel Carson: Found to have errata by whom?
Bertrand Russell: He won a nobel in literature
Ward Churchill: Managed to become professor nonetheless
Sulzerberger: That says nothing about academic credentials. The same argument could apply to President bush
Darwin: How? Give evidence
Sagan: Again, more evidence. How do we know he was wrong? Maybe his claim made sense.
Clinton: What does that say about the rest of her career?

Since I would like to be banned by this website, I would like to say CENSORED

It is interesting how the Liberal places so much weight on winning a [[Nobel Prize]]. The Liberal obviously doesn't understand that the [[Nobel Prize]] is merely an award given by [[Liberal]]s to other [[Liberal]]s. Notice how the [[Liberal]] engages in the act of [[Deceit]] and the use of [[Profanity]], a favoured [[Liberal Style]] in debates. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2008-05-24T10:35:04Z

BarrySherman: /* No */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

:No offense, but your point on the translation shows that you know very little on the issues of the debate. I encourage you to keep studying, but realize that we have the original language that it came in... the Greek and Hebrew. Now if you're talking about preservation, that's a miracle in and of itself. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare. And the earliest ones that we have correlate very nicely to the later ones we have. Did you know that there is a whole field of science called ''textual criticism'' that deals with problems in the text and figuring out what the original might have been? For example, when a scribe was copying down something, and had been doing that all day, he would have been tired and might have accidentally looked at the word on the previous line and wrote that word in instead of the one he was supposed to.
:Even I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the manuscripts ''that we have'', and thousands of them. However, that is a deceiving statistic because most of them have to do with either spelling a word differently or simply words put in a different order. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English, so it changes nothing about meaning. In case you're wondering, I am studying ancient koine greek, and know this. I'm not just repeating someone else's opinion. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 20:32, 4 December 2007 (EST)

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]
:[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] - Matthew and John part of the 12? [[Matthew the Apostle]] is only ''traditionally'' [[Matthew the Evangelist]] - modern biblical scholarship seems to disagree on this point. [[John]] wasn't an Apostle at all. Please check your Bible before citing it, otherwise mistakes may occur. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Oops. Well, I was rushed when I made that edit. It doesn't really change the bible's reliability, though. --[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 14:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

yes it is, because it has been most successful of all the religions in the world, claiming more beleivers then any other (that is what ultimatley determines how good (is that grammatically correct?) a religion is)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 02:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

ah. well i dont really think a religion is better than another.. a religion was first created to help one survey and percieve the world and to provide support. without it, m,any people would be lost. but i do not feel that there is an "optmila" or "true" religion...that part is just brinawash. =X [[User:KuR0K4R4|KuR0K4R4]]

why do we fight over whose god is better?? and does it really matter in the end?

No. No religion is better than any other. They are all false, and therefore totally invalid.

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I guess we all will. ALL of us. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:24, 4 December 2007 (EST)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

I just saved a ton of money by switching to Geico...
That sounds ridiculously off topic, but when confronted with such a hideously slanted question.
I understand the website's desire to set itself apart from WIKI, but asking such a narrow-minded question,
isn't going to win anyone over, in fact, if I didn't have a profound curiousity in this site, I'd already
be long gone...--[[User:Markos88|Markos88]] 21:03, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bandwagon==
Notice that only one religion has been picked as superior instead of asking which religion is superior and why? The subject is expected to attack such a unfair premise since it has targeted the one that seems to be a popular target for many of the commentors. This is the bandwagon propaganda technique.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)