Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Nabroon

2008-03-03T12:32:52Z

BenSchumin: New page: Someone look at his post to Debate Topics. This person is your typical Liberal troll using Deceit to hide his Liberalism. ~~~~

Someone look at his post to Debate Topics. This person is your typical [[Liberal]] troll using [[Deceit]] to hide his [[Liberalism]]. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-03-03T12:32:03Z

BenSchumin: Undo revision 397805 by Special:Contributions/Nabroon (User talk:Nabroon) Please take your Liberal filth elsewhere.

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-03-03T12:25:37Z

BenSchumin: /* Stephen Hawking Not An Intellectual? */

== 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)

==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)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-03-03T12:23:14Z

BenSchumin: /* Huh? */

== 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)

==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)

== 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)

User talk:RingWraith

2008-03-03T12:20:09Z

BenSchumin: /* Most-viewed Pages */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)}}
:Thank you for the welcome. ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

If you please, can you include the phrase (Middle Earth) in every article from the ''Lord of the Rings'' series, as well as go into detail about each one? It would be a great addition if these articles were expanded. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:Do you mean like races and people? It will be easy to append (Middle Earth) to these specific nouns. Thank you for moving the pages!!! ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:58, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::You're welcome on the moved pages. And I did mean everything; races, people, characters, Tolkien himself, etc. I'm a big fan of the series myself, and anything that would help bring it to life for the reader on this site would help. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Alright, will do. --...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 19:02, 9 December 2007 (EST)

If you still don't have move powers yet, do the new articles this way: create the page using normal spelling, then include the proper spelling in the main article, i.e. Eowyn becomes Éowyn, then leave a message for me to move it to the right title. This should benefit the average searcher by redirecting him to the right page after he typed in the common way to spell it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Karajou, are you talking about adding it to article titles, or just working it into the body of the article somehow? I'd be satisfied just to add a tag like <nowiki>[[Category:Middle Earth]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:03, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::A bit of both; the reader just heads to the article, and sometimes skips the category on the bottom. Making it clear in the title as well ensures that it is from the Tolkien universe. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::I spelled it wrong: it's [[Middle-earth]]. Tolkien was a stickler for spelling: [[dwarves]] not dwarfs, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Please use the "Middle-Earth" category. If you are going to create a subcategory such as "Places in Middle-Earth", then move over all the appropriate entries from Middle-Earth that should be there. Don't just create it for one article. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 14 December 2007 (EST)

== [[M14 rifle]] ==

Your edit appears to be partially copied from wikipedia. Please remove it if that is the case, because copying from wikipedia is against the rules here. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:03, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:I posted the facts about the rifle - it's not my fault that Wikipedia also posted those statistics. I used the same information box that is found at [[AK-47]]. ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 19:31, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Nickelback ==

Please refrain from silly, sarcastic entries in the future. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:14, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:There was nothing silly or sarcastic about that entry. If you'd read the lyrics of the song, you would see that the selected stanza is indeed present in the first half of the chorus. --...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 19:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Name ==

Well, I couldn't think of anything reasonable, except TomBombadil, which, I think, would be a bit too excessively Tolkien-fanboy-ish. Thanks, though :). --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 21:00, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Most-viewed Pages ==

I'm trying not to offend, so I won't post on the main page talk, but... see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ymmotrojam this log]. I still would've rather emailed you the answer though - on that note, you should probably enable email in your '''user preferences''', it makes communication easier in general. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Thank you, I guess what I read at the blog was true. I'll go enable my email now. ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 19:59, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==Hi==

I noticed you left this message on Conservative's user talk page:

<blockquote>
You may be interested in writing the article Quarantine of Homosexuals. I would help you create the article, if you would like. ...RingWraith 18:25, 13 December 2007 (EST)
</blockquote>

I would be interested in aiding the writing of such an article. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:20, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-03T12:11:40Z

BenSchumin: /* Source */

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Essay:Liberal Intellectualism

2008-03-02T16:26:37Z

BenSchumin:

[[Liberal]] ideology, and [[liberal]] arguments, have their greatest appeal with intellectual wannabees: people who are long in academic degrees but short in intellectual achievements of their own. Perhaps they genuinely fall for the superficial, fallacious [[liberal logic]], or perhaps they just enjoy the attention and extra income in being pseudo-intellectuals and media-promoted experts.

Examples of not-quite-intellectuals who promote [[liberal]] arguments include:

*[[John Kerry]]
:*privileged youth, weak student at [[Yale]], no original work
*[[Al Gore]]
:*privileged youth, poor graduate student, claimed to help with the creation of the [[internet]]<ref>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp</ref>
*[[Bill Clinton]]
:*may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at [[Georgetown University]], never released his grades, failed to earn a degree at [[Oxford]], no original work or ideas
*[[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. Currently claims to be a Professor, another ecample of [[Liberal Deceit]].
*[[Stephen Jay Gould]]
:*[[Antioch College]] graduate (geology major), his work is riddled with contradictions
*[[Laurence Tribe]]
:*dropped out of a graduate math program, passed over initially for Law Review, passed over for [[Solicitor General]] in 1993,<ref>Tribe admitted he was being considered, but he was not nominated. "Under Clinton, Crimson tide washes over Washington," The Boston Globe (Mar. 4, 1993).</ref> [[plagiarism]] later found in his work<ref>"Joseph Bottum, books and arts editor of the Weekly Standard, presents overwhelming evidence to support his claim that Tribe's 1985 book, God Save This Honorable Court, was largely copied from a 1974 book called Justices and Presidents by the University of Virginia's Henry J. Abraham. Bottum's case rests on the relentless citation of example after example where it is clear that Tribe has copied both the substance and, in many cases, the exact wording of Abraham's text. Most damning is Tribe's repetition of errors, like slight misquotations of original sources, in Abraham's book."[http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007975.php]</ref>
*[[Robert McNamara]]
:*described as a "whiz kid," he wrote or did nothing of significance, mishandled [[Vietnam War]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
:*fluent in relatively few languages for a diplomat, had no insights or noteworthy work, mishandled [[Vietnam War]] and [[Soviet Union]]
*[[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]
:*repeatedly passed over for the [[Nobel Prize]] due to a lack of achievement, allowed multiple leaks from [[Los Alamos]]
*[[Jon Stewart]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
:*famous for making a few guesses about [[linguistics]] some of which turned out to be partially correct. He has not done any work in linguistics in 30 years and just spends his time promoting left-wing politics outside his supposed area of expertise.
*[[John Maynard Keynes]]
:*dropped out of [[math]] to pursue the less rigorous [[economics]], but was unable to earn a doctorate even in that
*[[Michel Foucault]]
*[[Rachel Carson]]
:* Started the [[environmentalist]] movement with her book [[Silent Spring]] which was found to be full of errors, exaggerations and disregard for actual [[science]].
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
:*claimed to be proving the completeness and consistency of math, a goal [[Godel]] proved was impossible. Advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament.
*[[Ward Churchill]]
:*Offended millions of Americans by comparing those that died in 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, notorious organizer of the [[Holocaust]]. Had the gall to sue the University that terminated him.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul25/0,4670,EmbattledProfessor,00.html</ref>
*[[Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.]]
:*privileged youth, rise to the top based upon family name and inherited connections. Currently publisher of the ''[[New York Times]]''.
*[[Charles Darwin]]
:*poor student
*[[Carl Sagan]]
:*insisted that there must be life in outer space
*[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
:*flunked the [[D.C.]] bar exam; worked on the House Judiciary impeachment staff investigating [[Richard Nixon]]. Hillary's work was so poorly conceived and drafted that a member of the Committee, [[William Dixon]] said Hillary "paid no attention to the way the [[Constitution]] works in this country, the way politics works, the way Congress works, the way legal safeguards are set up."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=foWUM2R1K0wC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=hillary+nixon+olson&source=web&ots=06xJC-jwnM&sig=P6LflOsDROMR16cn_WGvXg4iZHU#PPA122,M1 Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton], By Barbara Olson, Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2001, pp. 122-123.</ref>

Please add other examples.

== Praised Heaped by Pseudo-Intellectual [[Liberals]] on Each Other ==

It is remarkable how pseudo-intellectual [[liberal]]s praise each other as geniuses. Examples include:

*[[Bertrand Russell]] declaring that the most intelligent man he ever knew was [[John Maynard Keynes]]<ref>http://www.hwkhelp.com/node/43</ref>

*[[Laurence Tribe]], who saw the best law students for several decades, insisted that fellow [[liberal]] [[Barack Obama]] was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant."<ref>http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Please add other examples.

== Motivation ==

There are two primary motivations for the [[liberal]] advocacy by pseudo-intellectuals:

* it is easier for them to obtain acclaim from the liberal press than from real intellectuals

* they genuinely fail to understand certain abstractions, such as:

:* how cutting taxes often increases government revenue ([[Laffer Curve]])
:* how guns save more lives through deterrence and prevention than they harm
:* how childbirth has a positive effect on health, and thus [[abortion]] harms health
:* how cease-fires always help a determined opponent in war
:* how arms limitations treaties always helps a dishonest adversary

* they expect superficial, flawed logic to persuade others, such as:

:* claiming that inequality in outcome implies discrimination
:* demanding equal treatment for genders in all situations
:* claiming that the [[gay agenda]] is like the civil rights struggle by African Americans
:* insisting that government can reduce poverty with more programs

Please add to these lists.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essay]]
[[Category:Oxymorons]]

Talk:Deceit

2008-03-02T16:15:08Z

BenSchumin: /* Reversion explained */

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


==Examples==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== contradiction in the definition ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Archiving ==

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

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

==Democratic Party==

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

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

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

==American Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Clinton==

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

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

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Another Example ==

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

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

== Catalog or informative article? ==

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

==Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Heading edit==

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

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

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

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

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberals and Deceit==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Piltdown Man ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal deceit

2008-02-28T22:04:39Z

BenSchumin: New page: REDIRECT# Deceit

REDIRECT# [[Deceit]]

User talk:StevenB

2008-02-28T22:04:14Z

BenSchumin:

Either respect this website or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:38, 28 February 2008 (EST)

I have said nothing bad. I just want no one to touch me and to touch no one. Whats the point of opinions when everyone is the same [[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]]

I think you should leave. Your [[Liberal Deceit]] has no place here. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 17:04, 28 February 2008 (EST)