Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?

2007-03-14T22:47:16Z

Cas194: /* Negative Opinions */

==Affirmative Opinions==

What definies the right of one country to a portion of land? While I'm prepared to change my mind-- I am rather uneducated on the subject of hawaii-- I must take the following position: America was wrong to annex Hawaii initialy, but at this point there is nothing we can do to ammend the wrong; we can't exactly kick them out of the union just because we never should have taken over way back in 1898. We have inherited a Hawaii that our great-grandfathers wrongfully annexed. Even so, Hawaian culture has been integrated with American culture; Americans and Hawaians have become American alike; at this point our occupation of hawaii ''is'' justified. That is to say: Our occupation of Hawaii, though wrongfully attained by our forebears, is now in the best intrest of all concerned.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)

:I kinda intended for this to be a one-time forum-type-thing. Like everyone gives their opinion once. -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:36, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Great! I will assuredly not give mine again.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 19:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)

==Negative Opinions==

'''NO!!!''' We never had any right to Hawaii the Americans were there as missionaries bbut their children turned into greedy businessmen who stole Hawaii from under Queen Liliuokalani's nose! -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)

NO - just as the occupation of North America by a bunch of European immigrants and the bloody suppression of the aboriginal inhabitants cannot be justified!

Talk:Google

2007-03-14T22:13:42Z

Cas194:

Can this be that same Google which submitted willingly to censorship by the oppressive, godless, communist regime in China?

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-14T20:45:54Z

Cas194: "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English"

How absurd!

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?

Talk:Google

Talk:Dinosaur