Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Best of the public

2009-12-18T03:53:10Z

CodyH:

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Best of the public

2009-12-18T03:52:30Z

CodyH: /* Kasparov vs. the World */

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess again where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-11T19:32:35Z

CodyH:

== FAQ ==
''This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.''
::''See also : [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''

=== '''Why is registration necessary?''' ===

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

=== '''Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?''' ===

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

== WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS ==

=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''

"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias."
Not to forget those who have ever read a book and the ones that did not grow up in a cave.

I'm a wakkkkkkyyyyyyyy dem haha so everything I see on this site are such lies. It's apparent to me that you run your whole site off of lies and brainwash of the general public. So I have a question how do you sleeep at night if I wad you I'd just huddle in my bed sucking my thumb yelling for my momy. This site makes me wonder do you have a mom or a sole for that matter or did you just spawn out of the mud one day. The sad part is, I'm 15 and I see through your lies. Who ever reads this should tell me what you think at www.myspace.com/brenton_lemay "Brenton".

hi, i am a Canadian and even i can see that you use facts that have more holes than swiss cheese and are backed up by so called 'experts' that don't even have degrees in the subjects they talk about.

I'll start. How are we supposed to do that when you haven't opened this page up to editing by users who aren't registered? Whoops!

:By registering, I'd say. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:39, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Doesn't that seem needlessly insular to you? While registering is simplistic, this also seems heavily uninviting to new visitors.

:Well ultimately, we're about building an useful educational resource. Anyone who wouldn't even bother registering probably isn't really interested in making substantive contributions. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:45, 8 December 2009 (EST)

I'd forgotten how full of himself Colbert is. Unbelievable. It's a good thing O'Reilly is a rerun tonight, or I don't think I could take this.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The one night Colbert might have some honest, conservative viewers, and he gives half his show over to this Marxist nutcase.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Haha. Colberts the man. People anyone who has a problem with colbert caz hes full of himself?! Thats an act... COlberts the man!!!! bill o reilly is a hypocrit nut job along with glenn beck and all of his fox news hypocritical bias friends. u might as well delete this because you don't agree with me, bias BS.
00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)~~

So, if you look at the entry on Global Warming here on Conservapedia it's blatantly obvious that there is extreme conservative bias. The first paragraph is nothing more than a subtle attack on the subject from a right wing point of view. A non bias entry would give a definition and only state the evidence for and against it and nothing else. An objective viewpoint sits in the middle and draws no conclusions. Anything that disagrees with the values of Conservapedia is immediately deemed "liberal." Here is the first paragraph from the Global Warming entry: ''The Global warming theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. Liberal scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.''

Conservapedia, it's great that your publishing the ultra-conservative point of view. Just don't try to claim that it is objective. It's not. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I heard about this on the colbert report. I haven't had much time to explore the site, but being a senior in a public high school that was raised in an extremely conservative household, I think it's great that someone would take the time to put something like this together. Having just done a paper on organic foods, I also think it's good to see a mass media source that dares to show the conservative side of the argument and not a bunch of liberal bs about how great a starving, communist society would be.[[User:Desertdog|Desertdog]]

I'm a big Colbert and Jon Stewart fan. So obviously I was hesitant to come to this website after the interview on the Report. But I did, mostly because the guest told Colbert that this is a non-liberal-biased website. Now, to me (and my stupid little non-conservative brain), that meant that this website would try and steer clear of any bias because it claims to present the truth. I read some pages. And now I want to throw up. Thank you all for cementing my political and personal beliefs by creating a website that is the antithesis to it all. I know now why we'll never reach an understanding; your beliefs are based on false "facts" and ignorance, mine aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. God only knows that you'll probably start a war on me though. Oh well.

Wow - reading this site I can't tell if you people are insane, ignorant, malicious or a combination of the above. I don't consider myself a liberal by any means but good heavens you just HAVE to know that most of your articles are outright lies. None of the articles I've read are not at all suitable for research and some contain almost no truth. I also find your complete idiocy regarding the e.coli experiment unfathomable. It makes me physically ill to see people so uneducated, so superstitious and so ideologically poisoned affecting young minds. I understand now why this site is such a laughing stock. Most of your views are for comic reasons. I know the colbert nation is going to find this quite amusing. I hope you grow up one day and give up the lie your living on conservapedia. [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:49, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to watch the interview. Also, I'm actually Hojimachong. Hi Andy and TK and other assorted admins! I'm sincerely looking forward to acquiring a copy of this conservative Bible. Godspeed! -[[User:DavidCarlson|DavidCarlson]] 00:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'm a little new here, but isn't most of this website in violation of Commandment #6: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."?
:You're joking right? This entire site is opinion - I mean they do have an article here that claims dinosaurs may still be among us ... [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah I was kidding, actually I originally thought that Colbert's team had made this site up a some sort of joke.

In response to the comment about Colbert "wasting" half his show - he has guests from all over the political spectrum. I respect that a lot, despite disagreeing with several of his guests. And though it's masked in comedy, he does give enough speaking time to let the guest get a point across. It's a good way to complete complete one-sidedness. And on that note, just because this site can boast of not having a liberal bias, doesn't mean it is superior. Any bias at all provides only partial information; so don't think a conservative bias is something to brag about.

: Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth. The liberal Hillary Clinton, for example, will never say anything that might interfere with her political ambitions, regardless of what the truth is. And I don't mean to single her out; her approach is typical for liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Society evolves. You don't think the rules by which society lives should evolve to match that? Either way, only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Even the most specific statistics can be skewed, and unless you're giving only raw facts, and ALL raw facts, you're not giving the entire story. Is that really possible in the media? No. But deliberately giving only half the information available is essentially a lie of omission.
::Though I don't know your name since you didn't sign your comment, I like where you're going when you mentioned, "only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on," because that's exactly what you see and what you get from [[Wikipedia]]. It's what sets [[Conservapedia]] apart from the [[liberal bias]] and [[censorship]] practices used by the [[MSM]] and the [[liberal]] Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia understands and knows that, as Andy Schlafly said,
::{{cquote|Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. [[Conservative]] approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth.}}
::And that's the truth. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 04:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, Derek, it's a circular argument. Conservatism cannot lay claim to the truth any more than liberalism can. Despite what Andy would have you believe, there is nothing inherent in conservatism that makes it rely more heavily on objective truth. Both ideologies respond to truth and morality as they see it. Liberal extremists are just as convinced that their beliefs are based on the world as it is, as opposed by the conservative desire to blindly maintain the status quo. Only a truly egocentric person would believe either of these extreme viewpoints. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Insufficient, I think you missed the primary argument regarding the [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia]]. Two major differences include: (A) Conservapedia does not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. (B) Conservapedia allows original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Conservapedia does not restrict research for articles in that manner. Wikipedia, however, restricts research to that of mostly opinion articles written by journalists who are mostly or always liberal; and thus, censor facts because of their personal ideology. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::No, I did read the primary argument regarding the difference. I just happen to think that it's silly. At best, you've replaced liberal censorship of conservative facts with conservative censorship of liberal facts. I think that if that were simply the case and if it were done at the same level of Wikipedia, most people would be fine with this site (though still disagree). In fact, that's what people expect when they visit the site. However, the reason that so many people are opposed to Conservapedia is that you take the issues of Wikipedia and multiply them tenfold. You replace minor biases in wording with complete lies. You replace fringe sections of ideological dissent with complete removal of disagreement. You literally mock those who disagree rather than actually trying to prove them wrong (see Evolution Syndrome). Believe me, nothing about the articles on this site is more "intellectual." As one of those "educated liberals" that Andy dislikes so much, I can say that with confidence. It promotes a more emotional atmosphere, which is an entirely different thing. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 12:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes the truth can be disheartening to others and may cause some to lash out. The only consideration I can think of at the moment is that, in retrospect, I suppose it reaches a point where, after some individuals refuse to admit or believe the truth and at the same time omit the truth, there's no other reaction left from dissenters except to mock the opponent for their sincere foolishness. Here's a great example, regarding John Holdren telling Congress that the Earth could be reaching a Global Warming ‘tipping point’ that would be followed by a dramatic rise in sea level. I'm sure his false comments strike fear in some people, as it is intended to; however, since [[Climategate]] revealed the facts about these fraudulent claims of [[Global Warming]], it reaches to a point where this will occur:
::::::{{cquote|Milloy said the models used by climate scientists, especially those who contributed to the most recent United Nations IPCC report, do not take account of some huge factors -- including the sun and clouds. “The models exclude that big yellow ball in the sky and they also exclude those white fluffy things that float by,” Milloy mocked. “Both of those have dramatic effects on climate on a daily basis.”[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58316]}}
::::::Sure, you could simply ignore what Milloy is saying in spite of its truthfulness; or, contrarily, you could refuse to admit truth and throw up a smoke n' mirrors fit about how Milloy mocked Holdren for making such ridiculous claims. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

: You failed to grasp the point I was making. I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical of you to condemn Wikipedia for being biased, and then proudly proclaim your own bias. I've said twice now, all that means is that you're boasting of a lie of omission. Just because we agree that a liberal bias is a bad thing, doesn't mean you're better because you're biased to the conservative side instead. And if you agree with where I was going that it's wrong either way, then you agree that you are just as wrong with your conservative bias as many other "sources" are with their liberal bias. That's all I'm saying. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Also, BOTH sides have basis in truth. It's a matter of to what extent they ignore other truths that don't support their opinion that the factual basis they start out with builds up to falsehoods. And both sides are guilty of that. Not to mention, many things hotly debated in politics are either matters of perspective (i.e. moral issues, where there really is no clear-cut right and wrong, as everyone reaches their own set of values through their own life experiences), or matters of educated guessing (i.e. economic issues, where you can look at how it's worked historically and look at the various ways you think things will pan out, but you won't know exactly how an economic policy will affect the economy at any specific time or under any specific circumstances until it's been enacted). (Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Sorry about that. Having trouble articulating myself today.) Even for other issues, like environmental issues, it comes down to realizing there is some truth in both arguments. I guess my frustration is how dogmatic you are about conservatism, and I can't help but wonder how you can see that as a good thing. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::The problem with your logic is that you're assuming the only difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is strictly political. It's not. It's also the academic resources that are allowed in Conservapedia but not Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia allows opinions of journalists to be repeated there as though they are facts. Instead, Conservapedia requires authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' biased opinion. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

We're not HIDING a liberal view. This is CONSERVAPEDIA - if somebody wants to hear the liberal side of an issue, they're not going to come here. They go to wikipedia or metapedia or a site of vandals and troublemakers or some other liberal wiki. We exist to provide a conservative resource, and we fill that role very well. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Yes, but in admitting that, you are admitting to the aforementioned lie of omission, which is essentially the entire basis for the site. Not something to brag on. So if there's going to be an argument about how terrible a thing liberal bias is, it would by hypocritical not to acknowledge that you are doing the exact same thing with the other end of the political spectrum and thus are, by your own definitions, equally wrong.

Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this.
Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the selection of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A question, while yes Colbert reminded of this website, I do remember coming here a few years and it saddens me to see you are now "trustworthy." Doesn't seem like anywhere is truly "trusworthy" anymore :-( [[User:Stjimmy33|Stjimmy33]] 01:27, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It's probably worth noting that Colbert's "full of himself" act is an intentional parody of various right-wing political commentators (particularly Bill O'Reilly). I did find it funny when Andy discussed the number of viewers that this site receives. I'm sure that there are lots of people who prefer Conservapedia because it reinforces their worldview (woe to the poor youth that are brought up to think of it as unbiased alternative to Wikipedia), but I think that Andy seriously underestimates (or chooses to ignore) the large number of people who visit this site for personal amusement. Conservapedia was personally recommended to me as a "hilarious way to waste time" between meetings, and that is how all of my colleagues view it. Some of it's assertions are so extreme and hypocritical that many people believe it to be a satire in itself, comparable to Stephen's Colbert's act. Overall, the interview began relatively uninteresting, but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned. What Andy described (i.e., individuals monitoring each other to ensure authenticity) does exist; it's called Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism, but that is the price of having access to a wide breadth of knowledge with the benefit of self-monitoring. You can't have it both ways. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 01:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Insufficient, it's true that we block a lot more often than Wikipedia, and we don't give vandals 3 or 4 chances as Wikipedia does. However, for every vandal Wikipedia receives, there are a dozen legitimate users just waiting to undo the vandalism. Here, we have comparitively few editors trying to hold back a tide of vandalism, many of it quite shocking and disgusting, on this site, which is designed to be family-friendly. We ban users for vandalism, and we get a lot of it. But we do not ban because somebody disagrees with us, and I can prove it.
:A user, BMcP, has done tremendous work contributing to our astronomy articles, but repeatedly put old-Earth viewpoints in. He wasn't banned, though! Instead, he and I reached an amicable agreement where we would treat old-Earth and young-Earth views in seperate sections, and that is how it is done now. Conservapedia is full of examples of conflict resolution and fair treatment of users just like that. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::But, for a counter-example, look at the entire relativity talk pages. A handful of technically competent editors (including RSchlafly, who appears to be a solid contributor to the site, have been shouted down by one person: ASchlafly. The relativity page is not "the best of the public" but rather the personal (and scientifically incorrect!) opinion of ASchlafly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 10:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:''"..but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned."'' Insufficient, that remark of yours sounded exactly like the emails from CRU. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::''Best. Response. Ever.'' And so true! I think he'd fit right in with the [[Climategate]] scientists. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If that is the case Jacob, why does the article on evolution seem to neglect the vast abundance of supportive evidence in its favour? It certainly isn't hard to find someone that is able to make a valid argument for evolution, and yet the page not only makes no reference to it, but often falsely denies its existence. That page alone fully disproves Andy's claim that conservatism gives priority to truth. In the place of real facts, we get denial and an irrelevant picture of Hitler to ensure that everyone gets the idea (whether consciously or unconsciously) that evolution is evil. This is in spite of the fact that social darwinism (a misnomer) is actually not part of natural selection. I'm not saying that the effects of social darwinism should be brushed under the rug, but throwing an image of Hitler into an article about evolution is ridiculous and is fully intended to evoke emotion rather than thought. I could just as easily throw up an image of Osama Bin Laden in an article on the evils of religious faith, but that would be lazy. Once you have your facts about evolution, THEN you can worry about discussing it's social misunderstandings. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:First of all, that's not Andy's claim, that's what conservative MEANS. Second, there are no valid arguments for evolution. If you wish to deny that social darwinism came from regular darwinism, go do it on Wikipedia. Finally, throwing UBL on a page on relgiious extremism would be silly - there are many fundamentalist Islamic clerics who, despite whatever other shortcomings they may have, are not terrorists. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

That's exactly my point. There are even more evolutionists that, "despite whatever shortcomings they may have," aren't Hitler, thus making his picture silly. As for valid arguments for evolution, there are many...they're not hard to find either. Despite what this site would have you believe, there is fossil evidence to support it, it follows naturally from what we already know (beyond doubt) from animal domestication, and it's been shown experimentally in the lab with bacteria (some of the only lifeforms with short enough lifespans that we can observe it occur). Even if an individual chooses to ignore all of this evidence, which is fully within their right to do, it is still far more support than exists for any opposing argument. Yet it's all noticeably missing from the article on evolution...and I have a feeling that if I added it, it would quickly disappear. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:All your supposed arguments are wrong, just as any argument supporting a "flat earth" are wrong, because they draw a false conclusion. We don't put falsehoods into the encyclopedia. Hitler practiced the theory of evolution; any evolutionist who does not support Hitler may be morally admirable but lacks the courage of their convictions. Terrorism is not the practice of religious fundamentalism, it is the practice of a very specific kind of Islamic fundamentalism - there is a difference. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:50, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Your arguments just keep further proving the point I'm trying to make. Yes, there is a difference between religion and terrorism, just as there is a difference between evolution and eugenics. You don't get to hand pick your facts in order to support your conclusion while denying others. Hitler didn't practice "the theory of evolution," he practiced eugenics. It's possible to believe in evolution and be morally opposed to eugenics, just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and oppose terrorism. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that promotes eugenics, just as there is nothing inherent in religion that promotes terrorism. Yet in each case, the two occasionally coexist. Also, claiming that all my arguments are wrong without giving any clear reason doesn't actually refute the arguments. I could just as easily claim that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because all of the evidence in support of it draws a "false conclusion" (this argument can be made for ANY theory). However, I can deny it until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the evidence does exist, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system is in plenty of encyclopedias, along with evolution. Scientific theories are never "proven." They are only supported or refuted. In the case of evolution, there is strong support--far more than for any alternative explanations. If support for evolution draws a false conclusion, it is impossible to argue that support for creationism is any different. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 03:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::No, Insufficient, it is your argument that proves our point. You're basically stating that evolution is a fact based on "support". What kind of "support"? Scientific consensus? A lot of people agreeing that it's true? Where's the proof? All I've been seeing is Mr. Scientist ''saying'' that animal-A evolved into animal-B - he's ''saying'' it is true; he's not ''proving'' it's true. As to your argument that it was settled in the lab with bacteria or the animal farm with domestication, well, that involves the interference of man in the results. Sorry to break your bubble, but your explanations are just insufficient. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, actually I didn't claim that evolution was a "fact," and saying so is blatantly misrepresenting my argument. I'm saying that it is a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it...moreso than is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted by the scientific community. That is the definition of a good scientific theory. Any theory that doesn't have any evidence to support it isn't worth anyone's time. I don't actually care whether you or anyone else believes in evolution, but when you (or anyone) outright lies about facts, I'm going to call you on it. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is evidence to support it, and by discrediting evolution for "lack of evidence," you are actually doing even greater harm to the theory of creationism, which has significantly less (arguably none, but I will humour you and pretend there is some). That is why there is no scientific debate about the existence of evolution. Is it a fact? Like any scientific theory, we can never say yes, but it is likely beyond reasonable doubt. As for the interference of humans, that doesn't actually matter as much as you like to believe. Whether humans interfered or not, animal domestication has proven that the heritability of traits can lead to huge changes in animal appearance and behaviour, so that after many generations, it becomes generally unrecognizable. How does this shaping occur? By utilizing natural processes: to breed an animal in favour of a particular trait, you select animals that have that trait and allow them to spread their genes. That isn't evolution; that's genetics, and we already know that it occurs from something as basic as family resemblance (for the record, this is what inspired Hitler, not evolution). The theory of natural selection merely takes what we already know about genetics and takes it to the next logical step. Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to a domesticated animal also apply in nature? If an animal has some advantage that allows it to spread its genes more than others, why wouldn't it follow the same laws? If they are in fact God's laws, you're accusing Him of inconsistency without any clear justification. And with regard to Andy's argument about "evolution syndrome," that's just called a lazy argument. I could just as easily claim the existence of a "creationist syndrome," with the exact same symptoms, but I should hope that if I was that desperate for an argument, someone would call me on it. If my explanations are insufficient (using a self-disparaging username for a pun isn't nearly as clever as you might think...), then I recommend making some of your own. Perhaps you should educate me on what a good argument with solid, logical conclusions would look like. Because so far it has all been denial, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 13:32, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::What rubbish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 What is "wrong" about this? What doesn't make sense of the theory of evolution? Where are you saying "that's impossible"? Your, or my, inability to comprehend a theory doesn't make it lies. 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST) {{unsigned|Rutger}}
::::You don't have proof that Evolution is fact. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:::::No I don't as unlike many conservapedia regulars I don't claim to be an expert on every subject rather I defer to people who are and who do have evidence which you can continue to deny. I noticed you failed to answer to the questions though (you want to wait for Andy's script so you don't get anything wrong?) and now that Andy is trying to pretend this isn't a dictatorship those who dare question your fragile world view aren't being immediatly banned. How inconvienient for you. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? [[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected. For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.' However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down. Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form. For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence -- "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement. And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable. Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

: We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible. Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges. Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as [[evolution syndrome]] that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored. Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

public school education: i am a loyal fan of Colbert and would like to say a couple of things. 1) i am half republican and have democrat (my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat and i like different ideas from both groups.)2)i have gone to a private school my entire life and i have never gone to the office once. i have never been punished and i have received straight A's since i was in fifth grade. therefore by you guys saying that every Colbert nation member has been public school educated and are all rebellious is not only overly general but obviously not true. you undermine any true statement that you make by obviously making up information.

: Private school students are less than 10% of the population, so you're the exception rather than the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::have you actually taken a scientific survey or are you making up information that would suit your argument. How sad because no doubt some of the things that you say are true but by being intellectually dishonest you blur any positive potential education of your viewers. if however, your statistic is correct (please share with me the citation) that doesn't mean that only 10% of the Colbert Report viewers are privately educated.

::The article on [[evolution]] is a keeper! Don't change a bit: I love reading sentences like ''19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior'' (according to the source, both were partly right, partly wrong) [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:02, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::You'll like our entry on [[evolution syndrome]] even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If evolution is undeniable fact, how come we never evolved a third set of teeth? Since you cannot observe evolution, and you can observe many things that would be different were evolution true, it seems to me the sensible starting point is to assume that evolution didn't happen, and wait to be proven wrong. As that has not happened yet, I'll continue to believe evolution is just an justification for social Darwinism and policies like the Nazis enacted.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 18:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A third set of teeth? I'm not sure who taught you the theory of evolution, but just know that you are WAY off the mark. I'm starting to think that disbelief in evolution comes from a complete misunderstanding of anything about it. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:18, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Before you discount something, actually know what you are talking about. However, if people on here knew what they were talking about, most of this website, if not all of it, would not exist. As for your example, if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we don't have a third set of teeth because we don't need one. If it benefitted people, then if and when the mutation took place in our genes, that person would thrive and have more offspring than other people, promoting this gene in future generations. I can see why evolution might confuse you if you think that it "just happens."

:But it would benefit people; that's unambiguous. Teeth go rotten, get cavities, fall out. Only recently has it become commonplace for people to keep their teeth into middle age and beyond. You need teeth to eat, see how long a chimpanzee lasts in the wild with no teeth, so I would think someone who can regrow teeth as an adult would be at a huge advantage relative to those who couldn't. Plus a full set of teeth is more attractive to the opposite sex than not, no? My argument is precisely that it does benefit us, and so the fact that it hasn't caught on is proof that evolution doesn't exist. Your problem is your mind is closed to ideas that you don't already have. I concur with Andy that you might find the article on [[evolution syndrome]] useful.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 22:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Only recently has it become commonplace for people to '''live''' into middle age and beyond.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:All the more reason why a third set of teeth would benefit humans. Can anyone here over the age of 25 really claim that getting fresh teeth would not be nice?--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 00:11, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Captain2obvious- It's only common place for liberals who want to enact global warming legislation. Liberals want everyone to live in huts of straw and forfeit the modern ages which is bad bad bad for the Earth.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's what's called a strawman. If your arguement has no merit please continue to use them and think you're superiour. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Two things: First a question. HUH?; Secondly, I am not a "liberal", as you are so implying.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Why do people who state "I am not a liberal" never state what they actually call themselves? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The simplest reason would be that until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Oopsy, I read your reply wrong (middle ages / middle age). I never said you were liberal, just misinterpreted your remark.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Perfectly understandable Jpatt, its not the first misunderstanding that's occurred on the Internet.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative" Forgive me for my conflicted feelings between seriously asking exactly what that means and being simply baffled by the silliness of such a statement. Split the difference: what does that mean and how in the world could a brief visit to a single website change what you consider yourself to be? Also, you still haven't stated exactly what you consider yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Let me clarify a bit then. Visiting the site has not in not the slightest changed the way I think about myself. I still consider myself Conservative. However in my "brief" time visiting this website, and after reading several of the articles and discussions, has made me question whether other people would classify me as such.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

And I repeat, Gonzo: your understanding of natural selection is incorrect. With all due respect, it completely undermines your attempt to discredit natural selection when you don't know what you're arguing against. Evolutionists don't argue that humans (or any other species) are currently at their "peak" of evolution. People have this inflated self-view about the world revolving around them, but aside from a more advanced central nervous system, we're just another spec on the evolutionary time line. Your argument assumes that we are done evolving, which isn't the case at all (nor have I ever heard an evolutionist make this claim). That is partly why your "why aren't we the absolute best that we can be?" straw man argument doesn't work. Second, you are assuming that just because something is beneficial, that means that it will naturally occur through evolution. This is also not the position of modern evolutionists. If that were the case, beavers would have naturally evolved with chainsaws and gazelles would be able jump over rivers to escape predators. We don't automatically evolve everything that would be useful. We evolve based on the genes that are available in the gene pool. Several factors come into play here (minor random mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift...things that we know occur through research unrelated to evolution), but what is important is that evolution has to work with the genes that are available. Those that are beneficial will tend to spread, while those that are detrimental will tend to recede (though not necessarily disappear). Once again, this is fully in line with what I already described earlier with animal domestication. You can't breed a dog to fly, but you can create a lot of variability based on the existing gene pool. Finally, even if a gene does appear in the gene pool, it is more difficult to determine usefulness than you seem to think. For example, suppose that a gene did arise for an extra set of teeth (might as well work with the argument you've given). Who knows, maybe this gene does exist, did at some point, or some day will. However, it's not just a simple matter of extra teeth = good. These teeth have to come from somewhere. Your body needs to find the resources to create them. This can mean less calcium available for other sets of teeth (thus resulting in an overall reduction in a person's tooth quality), less calcium for bone production, an increased necessity for nutritious resources, etc. Everything costs something, and teeth aren't free. Every modification becomes part of a complex equation of costs versus benefits. And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution. NOTHING about evolution requires (or even asserts) that those hypothetical animals need to exist. Then again, I'm sure that this lengthy explanation will be brushed off as an "obsessive rant," because that is easier than taking it seriously... [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 12:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:''"And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution."'' - Insufficient. "Simplified?" Not so much. [[Liberal wordiness|Wordiness]] is what comes to mind. On the subject of [[evolution]], do you believe evolution happens because of ''environment'' or because of a ''need'', or is it simply a random gene mutation? ''Why does the Panda bear have a thumb?'' ;-) ...I think philosophical debates can be fun, but in many cases it doesn't prove or disprove anything, because there's usually a counter-argument to an argument. But it can bring up interesting debate topics. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::I apologize that it takes WORDS to explain a complicated process like evolution. You demand that I answer your questions, but then complain that it can't be done in two sentences or less? I'm sorry that the world isn't that simple. Believe me, what I gave was a simplified answer to Gonzo's question. You keep asking for more questions to be answered, yet you make it clear that the answers are above your head...which is it? I wouldn't be so judgemental of your position if you yourself even knew what (or why) it is. Instead you lure with baited questions, yet you have no interest in whatever answer you get. As I've stated before, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with evolution on the grounds of faith, but at least admit it to yourself. Don't pretend to be intellectual by faking interest in the other position. Don't outright lie about the facts and demonize those who choose to take a non-faith based search for the truth. If someone says that 2+2=4, don't argue that it's because of "human interference." I know that I could take you by the hand through each step of evolution and it wouldn't change your mind. One of creationism's central arguments is that it is infallibly true. I personally dislike circular arguments, so I choose to find my own path to the truth, but that is a personal choice. Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax (I bet Andy would host a parade), at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question. I understood and questioned what I believed because I would rather LEARN that I am wrong than be TOLD that I am right. I didn't limit my knowledge by trying to keep it simple (i.e., I wasn't afraid of words). Suppose that all of this was true and evolution was finally removed from the history books...would this really help your position for creationism? Not according to the unrealistic (and silly) standards that you've a set for evolutionists. Your demand for "proof" has always been doubly harmful to creationism. But who knows? With all of that objective truth that you claim to have on your side, I imagine that you guys must be hoarding a ton of undeniable scientific evidence. In fact, with all of this ample evidence that you have (because not having it would, of course, make you a hypocrite), why would you even worry about evolution? Show us the truth. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Woah..woah...hold up. No demands or complaints from me. Thus far I've only pushed buttons; testing the sensitive spots for a reaction. All I did was attempt to open a possible door for you, as another approach for you to argue for evolution. Hence the Panda's thumb theory, which was more of a test to see if you've heard of the theory. You might like it. Point being: the best argument(s) attempting to prove a point should always be willing to counter the best argument(s) on the other side, which of course are trying to prove different point. You say, ''"Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax, at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question."'' The logic you're using to make that conclusion, I find it interesting -- so, earlier I 'prodded' for more (or 'baited'). But it seems like you're judging me based on the community I enjoy being a part of, not on what I have said to you. I was only asking questions and looking for a logical, concise answer. Nothing more and nothing less. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 01:10, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::: I believe that that was a simplified version of evelotion. Books upon books have been written on the subject. It can be summed up in a few sentences, but then it is lacking in the crucial details you all demand.

::Exactly. And I'll point out that unlike my friends in the secular left, I don't pretend that I'm smart enough to know all of the mysteries of creation. I'm merely pointing out that it's hard to get my head around evolution when there's so many adaptations that would have been useful that we don't have, like extra teeth or the eradication of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors. But you're exactly right, I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable to understand everything about how the world works. That's why we have science, why we have the bible, indeed why we have this site, and it's all of our job to ask questions like I'm doing.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 17:38, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::So...you admit that you don't know the answer to these questions, but you smugly ask them with a clear answer in mind, denying any evidence to the contrary? I just wanted to make sure that I properly interpreted what you said. It's a bit tricky, given that I have to reconcile it with your previous comments. I agree, most people aren't scientists and don't have direct access to the evidence, but ignorance isn't a argument against evolution. Scientists do agree on evolution based on the understanding that they DO have. It sounds like you would believe in evolution if you practiced what you preached. You are also correct that science grows out asking questions...but what's the point if you don't intend to stay to hear the answer? [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've done my best to ascertain what the scientific community has to say about evolution. There are some who are in favor of evolution, there are some who are against it. My personal assessment is that secular humanist scientists are relatively more likely to let their own views distort their research, and I anyway find the creationist perspective more persuasive based on the facts. You should peruse our [[evolution]] entry. I certainly don't know everything, but my point was that people on the left are so sure of evolution that it might as well be some other, inaccurate religion.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 21:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::With all due respect, it doesn't seem like you want to hear what the "scientific community has to say about evolution." I'm not a biologist and certainly not an expert, but it is a side interest of mine, and I have been surrounded by scientists for several years now. Also, it is not difficult to find tons of information on evolution. Although I am not biologist, I am in a discipline that works closely with biology. In all of my years at multiple universities, I have personally never met a scientist that didn't believe in evolution. I don't deny that they exist, but they are actually relatively rare. What scientists DO sometimes disagree upon is the micro-level causes for it. There is ample evidence that animals changed over time and we know a great deal about genetics as it is, but there is still more to learn. This is exactly how scientific theories emerge and it is not in any way atypical. First, the scientific community learns that a process occurs (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun), and then disputes the reasons WHY this is the case. The same controversy emerged when the aforementioned earth-sun controversy arose, and it proved that the church isn't always right on matters of science. Despite what Conservapedia would have you believe, scientists are no more stubborn than are creationists. They're both equally stubborn, but for different reasons. Scientists are stubborn because everything that creationists say is in opposition to what we see from historical evidence. Creationists are stubborn because the infallibility of their argument is one of its central tenants. I am aware of the viewpoint of evolution as another form of religion, but I would argue that it is no more a religion than is believing that the earth revolves around the sun. By that logic, believing in anything would qualify as a religion, at which point the argument becomes meaningless. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 22:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::::"Insufficient", you need to get out more if you've never met a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution. And you need to respect logic more if you think consensus establishes truth. Better yet, I urge you to give equal time to the Bible, the most logical book ever written. Based on your postings, I bet you don't spend even 5% of your spare time reading or analyzing the Bible. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Andy, isn't the whole philosophical underpinning of a wiki that collaboration and consensus lead us closer to some kind of truth? In your interview, you said something along the lines of "the best of the public" engages in a "process that brings out the best," and "the truth rises to the top." Isn't this a form of consensus-making? You also likened the process to a jury decision, which is also a process of consensus-making. So, what do you mean when you when you say that someone needs "to respect logic more if [s/he] think[s] consensus establishes truth?" Also, since the discussion here seems to hinge on people demanding "proof" from other people, could you provide proof that the Bible is the most logical book ever written? By what standards do you judge logic? Have you read every single book in existence in order to come to your conclusion? --[[User:WideAngle|WideAngle]] 12:27, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::The straight scientific ''"consensus"'' on the shape of the earth in 1491 was that it was flat. Was that a right or a wrong consensus? And yes, the Bible is the most logical book ever written; by what standards do you think it's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::I'm not making the assertion that consensus=truth. I merely wanted Andy to explain how he can reconcile the claim that consensus does not establish truth with the philosophical underpinnings of a wiki. And the onus isn't on me to establish the standards for evaluating the logic of the Bible. I didn't make the claim that it was the most logical book ever written. It's your responsibility to support your claim that the Bible is the most logical book ever written, not mine. As people are fond of saying here, assertion is not argumentation. --[[User:WideAngle|WideAngle]] 13:23, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::: (edit conflict) Actually, as reverted [[User:GrahamGore]] pointed out, scientists then considered the earth spherical - and they actually had a better idea of its size than Columbus, and they knew he couldn't get to Asia - what they didn't know was that America was in the way. I think a better example would be bloodletting: the scientific consensus for ages was that it helped patients, when it actually was hurting them. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 13:26, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::::I mentioned the consensus of 1491; the previous troll went to an ''an hominem'' - and completely ignorant - argument immediately upon entering the site. As far as user WideAngle goes, he dosn't come here and make demands of us to answer his questions when he knows full well that it has been answered many times within these articles and talk pages. Now I have a question of him, and he will answer: explain the "philosophical underpinnings of a wiki" and how it's supposed to be different from everything else, and why we must conform to that explanation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)

It's nice to finally have all of the fallacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia in one easily accessible place. I think my favorite thing about Conservapedia is the use of the Bible in what seems like every article (I haven't read every article so perhaps this is a gross generalization. But when it comes to, say, immigration is the Bible really the best source?) I will probably be using this website when I have to write papers on current situations. It will be a lot easier to just come here than to have to seek out the few religious right wingers I know for a quote. {{unsigned|Writerfish}}

: Try taking our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]. You might break the record for the lowest score!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Registration==
You don't make it easy for a place that wants people to edit, do you? I tried after the show last night, couldn't figure it out, but managed to stumble upon one of your (stupider, and rather well hidden) policies on user names. I was able to register this morning, but if it hadn't worked, you probably would have lost a contributor forever. [[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Welcome. I don't believe stupider is an actual word.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the [http://conservapedia.com/Wiki/conservapedia Welcome Banner], as discussed on the [[New Welcome Banner proposal]] page. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Wow. Could you guys stop whining about registration already? I'd rather not be associated with people who can't pass the rigors of user-name creation. --[[User:Montag|Montag]] 21:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::The argument I'm making from the New Welcome Banner has more to do with creating a more welcoming entrance to the site, but also improving ease of navigation to pages that are valuable to newcomers. At one point or another every one of us was a wiki-newbie. While the easiest way to learn is through trial and error, I see no harm in facilitating the learning process by allowing new-comers to be more cognizant of the encyclopedia's rules, guidelines, how-to's, and other salient information that more advanced members already know about. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 21:59, 9 December 2009 (EST)

==Open letter to Conservapedia==

I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).

There's some equivocating concerning the obvious bias (I think the device of substituting the word "truth" for "bias" is entertaining), but the corporation does not actually conceal its mission. Conservapedia is candid with the following facts: It represents the conservative socio-political viewpoint, it is alligned with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and it is hostile to opposing viewpoints. I note the distinction between this candor and react differently to Conservapedia than I do to a corporation like News Corp (Fox News), who boasts fairness and balance. Remember: Conservapedia does not promise balance. Yet Conservapedia is predominantly fair.

Despite an open allignment with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, Conservapedia is not contemptuous of other forms of Christianity, or even other religions. They dutifully note the basic interpretations of other scriptures like the Q'aran and Torah and tell the stories respectfully. They also include other denominations' interpretations of Biblical text without condemning them. Conservapedia articles suggest outside doctrine is foolhardy, but stops short of actually calling adherents fools.

What Conservapedia actually does is compile the conservative viewpoint in a way that incorporates most of the world's features and topics (from science to history to theology) in such a way that has the potential to reconcile problems (such as science versus ideology) and unify conservatives into a more cohesive bloc than was possible before technology of this scale. It is also a reference for non-conservatives to understand their fellow countrymen better. In my opinion, both functions have a benefit - even if I am an apostate by Conservapedia's rigid measure.

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia. Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example). Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion. However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission. If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s. Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.

Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009.

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Steech, your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought. It is the anathema to conciseness, so it's obvious you don't like Conservapedia's rule to be concise. We've had that rule since the very beginning and it is essential to quality learning. Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words. Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:05, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Mr. Shlafly, accept my thanks for personally answering me. I find the attention a sign of your generosity and sincerity in your endeavor.

::My "open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal" arts educations. It also reflects a personality trait and characteristic style of communicating. Many editorialists from across the philosophical spectrum have found comfort in loquacity. My word count is high; I concede the point. However, I respectfully disagree with your accusation that I've offered a poor show of points.

::In bullet-point style, the recap reads as follows:

::*Conservapedia is not a contemporary of biased "news" media.
::*Conservapedia has an opinion.
::*Conservapedia is predominantly fair.
::*Conservapedia codifies a worldview in a way that will inform adherents and detractors alike.
::*Conservapedia is not an academic reference source. It is only a codex for a specific value set.

::Prosaic style does not harmonize with your editorial prerogative. I understand that and admit I would be a poor Conservapedia contribitor. However, your site and your interview on The Colbert Report prove that you are personally an intelligent man and believe your readers are intelligent as well. I think there is room in this world for people like me.

::(As an aside, I took your "Quantifying Openmindedness" article self test and satisfied your basic criteria. According to your "example questions and topics," I am not a polar ideological enemy of yours. It would seem we merely respectfully disagree.)

::To other commenters, let me be more clear on the subject of "'pedias" as academic resources. No encyclopedia article will constitute research by any discriminating instructor's measure. Maybe in elementary or junior high school. But by the time a student reaches high school or college, the encyclopedia is effectively disqualified as a citation in a research paper.

::"'Pedias" have made basic reference immediate and increased the efficiency of writers in an unprecedented way. Need to know the name of an Andy Griffith Show cast member or the name of the movie in which Don Knotts played a cartoon fish? Dial it up electronically with the help of a "'pedia."

::But do you have to write a term paper about Alexander Hamilton? Don't consult an open source, democratic 'pedia, because it will by nature contradict itself. The old school World Book and Funk and Wagnel's avoid such inconsistency only by being abbreviated to oblivion.

::My advice to the kids: Education (regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal one) is still conducted primarily in the theaters of the juried manuscript and laboratory.

::Steech, December 11, 2009.

:::''we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges'' That's really impressive - at least, if you can give some corroboration for this claim... [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 17:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::BTW, on your user-page, you state ''My students have typically been admitted to their first choices in colleges '', followed by a list of fifty colleges. Do you think that all of these are top colleges? Only sixteen are linked to an article here at conservapedia, I suppose that these are the best. OTOH, you say that ''at least 6 students [were] admitted'' at ''Grove City College'', so taking this as an upper bound for admissions, I'd say that less than 100 students of you were helped by you into a top college. So, which other programs here at conservapedia are responsible for the next 100 successful applications?
::Otherwise: Shouldn't you leave such hyperbole to the liberals?
::[[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 17:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::ComedyFan, based on your assumption and opinion, let's say the teaching and education provided by Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia helped 100 students get into the college of their choice. That's 100 more students who benefited from the use and information from Conservapedia than what Wikipedia can claim. Conservapedia has assisted in educating 100% more students than Wikipedia - that's quite the accomplishment if you ask me. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a story awhile back about a kid who used Wikipedia as a reference for a paper - and failed the assignment for it. Yikes. If only Wikipedia held itself accountable for the quality of its articles... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I benefit from information on wikipedia...I mean, it would be foolish to use it for a project, but anyone with an open mind who intends on doing more research, or just needs some tiny fact on an ovbscure subject (history of video gaming), than its good. [[User:DerekSmalls|DerekSmalls]] 22:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands ''for each lecture''.

:::I didn't add that many of my students have won scholarships, and even graduated from college in 3 years.

:::How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::Wikipedia isn't supposed to have lectures and model answers for one. Its an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unlike this one, which is used as a tool for teaching homeschool kids. Wikipedia isnt out to change the world into something conservative or liberal, its there to be a quick look up for random information. DerekE, If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia...or metapedia or any other wiki type thing. They are not good sources, if you want to cite something use the original source.--[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 18:22, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia ... if you want to cite something use the '''original source'''."'' -- JAiken. You just proved my point. Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does. From your example, and based on the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia, if I were using both as a tool to help for researching purposes, Wikipedia would provide me with '''''zero''''' references to help assist further research; likewise, Conservapedia will provide a vast number of properly cited, original sources for academic purposes. Wikipedia is simply filled with opinion articles from journalists. If I wanted to go read ''The New York Times'' or HuffingtonPost, I'd go directly to their Web site. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::I am sorry DerekE, but that claim is 100% false. Wikipedia does link to the original sources in their reference section. What they do not allow is original research/ideas. I think you have confused these terms and the meaning behind them. An original source is linking to the original full research paper by Craig Venter on the human genome. Wikipedia allows this and it is one of the only reasons a person should ever go to Wikipedia when doing serious work. On the other hand I cannot go to Wikipedia and post my own original thoughts/ideas/unverified research as fact. I would hope that Conservapedia does not allow that either. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 12:07, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::That's simply false. Wikipedia ''is'' propagating liberal falsehoods and censoring conservative truths, as illustrated by [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. One of the entries on that list discusses how Wikipedia editors have been 6 times more liberal than the general public.

::::If Wikipedia were designed to help people as Conservapedia does, it would be very different indeed. Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, just because Wikipedia doesn't set out to "help(?)" individual students, it is still a place of information. I'm sure that plenty of people who might otherwise no have access to information have benefited from it.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 21:29, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The ''National Enquirer'' "is still a place of information," so you can't be serious in proposing that as the test. Verbose gossip and/or liberal distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::: You may be right on that fact. Conservapedia is a place of "information," but "conservative" distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for the easily manipulated.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 21:33, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::You're long on rants, but awfully short on specifics ... because you have none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If you still want evidence that Wikipedia helps students, it has certainly helped me. And before you say that all it does is teach liberal bias, I'd like to see how you bias math. In fact, Andrew used math as an example of objective truth in the interview. Wikipedia has numerous and detailed articles on numerous math topics and is an invaluable resource on learning things that the public education system never teaches.
I have been unable to find any similar math articles on Conservapedia by the way.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 21:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The National Enquirer is in no way a reputable source of information. Nor is Wikipedia, unless you only use it for the primary sources it lists in the citations section. 6 times as liberal? Pray tell. How do you quantify liberality? Is it just some litmus test you randomly developed on this site or is there some sort of physical test? Tell me, if I support evolution, oppose gun control, and think Obama is a traitor, how many times more liberal am I than you? Would that number change if I was believed that evolution was false? What about if I wanted to burn all the books dealing with relativity because it distracts from reading the bible? --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:: I can give an example of a conservative distortions being used to cause harm, Uganda. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

In response to Edmund, your claim is not credible because it lacks specifics. Many liberals like Wikipedia's bias and would claim it has helped them simply to promote it further. That doesn't wash. I've looked at many of Wikipedia's math entries and can't say I've learned anything of value from any of them. They are not concise and clear, and many of them seem to deliberately obscure. Their entry on Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, omits how it relies on the Axiom of Choice. Wikipedia even deleted its entry on the important concept of an [[elementary proof]], and only added its current version after I pointed that out as an example of bias. Our explanation is better even now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)

It seems that this website is full of contradictions. An encyclopedia with an admitted bias, but says its trustworthy? Bias is inherent in everything but if we say that it is okay even good then there is no attempt to actually reach the unbiased truth. Bias is not good but shouldn't we be trying to move away from it and not embracing it. If this website says something that is completely at odds with what the rest of the world believed it wouldn't matter because there is an inherent interest in providing one side. That tends to come at the expense of truth. This website seems to dislike the MSM but if they so something with obvious bias someone can call them on it. If this website does something with obvious bias that's fine. If journalists are all biased in the main stream media then how do you get information? There are plenty of right wing commentators but you can't create facts out of commentary. People have to actually report the information. Why are there adults making fun of people who don't agree with them? I would also like to take issue with what truth is thought of as. Taking original intent in your view of the constitution and reducing government power does not make your political ideology any more truthful. Just as trying to make the government more powerful and interpreting the constitution more broadly does not make a political ideology any more truthful. I am mystified how believing these things adds to truth. Truth is what is actual reality. Neither changing government power or interpreting a piece of writing really leads to truth. --[[User:johnsm]] 21:30, 10 December 2009 (est)

:One thing i've noticed is that there has been no data actually presented in these cases aside from anecdotal evidence. Also, just because You, or someone, hasn't learned from something doesn't make it invalid, it just means that you either A) knew the information already and didn't need to re-learn it, or B) didn't take the effort to learn, and therefor passed it by.

:Also, conservative distortions, just like liberal ones, cause harm every day in the world. Take for example Iran, Sudan or Somalia [all of which follow 'religious conservative' governments], the deaths of Dr. Teller or Dr. Gunn, the thousands of children that died from measles [easily preventible by vaccination] last year, or any other examples you would wish me to point out. I won't get into the historical arguments here, to save space. That is not to say that liberalism doesn't have the same, or worse, negative effect on the world. The current Swiss ban on minarets comes to mind. I just wanted to point out that distortions from both sides are harmful and should be eliminated.

:And, to finish off, I just wanted to say it's good to be back. I'll be looking forward to debating with you all again. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 08:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::Cody, we explain what [[conservative]] means, and it includes limited government. This concept is not running the governments you mentioned. Next you act like liberal/conservative are symmetric with respect to the truth. That's plainly false, as illustrated by our entry on [[deceit]]. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: spend at least 5% of your spare time reading or translating a ''logical'' book: the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:28, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:::Conservatives don't want limited Government, they want their own government, as outlined by their moves to block stem cell research, abortion, gun control, amnesty, alternative energy, and a range of other topics at the national and federal levels. The truth is symmetric to the truth, and is both apart from and twisted by both sides of the political spectrum, conservatives and liberals alike. And I have read the bible before, once as a child and once during my crisis of belief after entering the military, which led me to my agnosticism. If you want me to read it again, then I find it fair that I ask you to look at the evidence for relativity, evolution, and other topics without the biblical worldview. I may find something new in my next reading of the Bible, or you might find something new in your next examination of the secular world. As they say, Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted. How about it? -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 14:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-11T13:50:11Z

CodyH:

== FAQ ==
''This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.''
::''See also : [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''

=== '''Why is registration necessary?''' ===

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

=== '''Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?''' ===

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

== WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS ==

=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''

"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias."
Not to forget those who have ever read a book and the ones that did not grow up in a cave.

I'm a wakkkkkkyyyyyyyy dem haha so everything I see on this site are such lies. It's apparent to me that you run your whole site off of lies and brainwash of the general public. So I have a question how do you sleeep at night if I wad you I'd just huddle in my bed sucking my thumb yelling for my momy. This site makes me wonder do you have a mom or a sole for that matter or did you just spawn out of the mud one day. The sad part is, I'm 15 and I see through your lies. Who ever reads this should tell me what you think at www.myspace.com/brenton_lemay "Brenton".

hi, i am a Canadian and even i can see that you use facts that have more holes than swiss cheese and are backed up by so called 'experts' that don't even have degrees in the subjects they talk about.

I'll start. How are we supposed to do that when you haven't opened this page up to editing by users who aren't registered? Whoops!

:By registering, I'd say. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:39, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Doesn't that seem needlessly insular to you? While registering is simplistic, this also seems heavily uninviting to new visitors.

:Well ultimately, we're about building an useful educational resource. Anyone who wouldn't even bother registering probably isn't really interested in making substantive contributions. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:45, 8 December 2009 (EST)

I'd forgotten how full of himself Colbert is. Unbelievable. It's a good thing O'Reilly is a rerun tonight, or I don't think I could take this.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The one night Colbert might have some honest, conservative viewers, and he gives half his show over to this Marxist nutcase.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Haha. Colberts the man. People anyone who has a problem with colbert caz hes full of himself?! Thats an act... COlberts the man!!!! bill o reilly is a hypocrit nut job along with glenn beck and all of his fox news hypocritical bias friends. u might as well delete this because you don't agree with me, bias BS.
00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)~~

So, if you look at the entry on Global Warming here on Conservapedia it's blatantly obvious that there is extreme conservative bias. The first paragraph is nothing more than a subtle attack on the subject from a right wing point of view. A non bias entry would give a definition and only state the evidence for and against it and nothing else. An objective viewpoint sits in the middle and draws no conclusions. Anything that disagrees with the values of Conservapedia is immediately deemed "liberal." Here is the first paragraph from the Global Warming entry: ''The Global warming theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. Liberal scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.''

Conservapedia, it's great that your publishing the ultra-conservative point of view. Just don't try to claim that it is objective. It's not. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I heard about this on the colbert report. I haven't had much time to explore the site, but being a senior in a public high school that was raised in an extremely conservative household, I think it's great that someone would take the time to put something like this together. Having just done a paper on organic foods, I also think it's good to see a mass media source that dares to show the conservative side of the argument and not a bunch of liberal bs about how great a starving, communist society would be.[[User:Desertdog|Desertdog]]

I'm a big Colbert and Jon Stewart fan. So obviously I was hesitant to come to this website after the interview on the Report. But I did, mostly because the guest told Colbert that this is a non-liberal-biased website. Now, to me (and my stupid little non-conservative brain), that meant that this website would try and steer clear of any bias because it claims to present the truth. I read some pages. And now I want to throw up. Thank you all for cementing my political and personal beliefs by creating a website that is the antithesis to it all. I know now why we'll never reach an understanding; your beliefs are based on false "facts" and ignorance, mine aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. God only knows that you'll probably start a war on me though. Oh well.

Wow - reading this site I can't tell if you people are insane, ignorant, malicious or a combination of the above. I don't consider myself a liberal by any means but good heavens you just HAVE to know that most of your articles are outright lies. None of the articles I've read are not at all suitable for research and some contain almost no truth. I also find your complete idiocy regarding the e.coli experiment unfathomable. It makes me physically ill to see people so uneducated, so superstitious and so ideologically poisoned affecting young minds. I understand now why this site is such a laughing stock. Most of your views are for comic reasons. I know the colbert nation is going to find this quite amusing. I hope you grow up one day and give up the lie your living on conservapedia. [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:49, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to watch the interview. Also, I'm actually Hojimachong. Hi Andy and TK and other assorted admins! I'm sincerely looking forward to acquiring a copy of this conservative Bible. Godspeed! -[[User:DavidCarlson|DavidCarlson]] 00:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'm a little new here, but isn't most of this website in violation of Commandment #6: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."?
:You're joking right? This entire site is opinion - I mean they do have an article here that claims dinosaurs may still be among us ... [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah I was kidding, actually I originally thought that Colbert's team had made this site up a some sort of joke.

In response to the comment about Colbert "wasting" half his show - he has guests from all over the political spectrum. I respect that a lot, despite disagreeing with several of his guests. And though it's masked in comedy, he does give enough speaking time to let the guest get a point across. It's a good way to complete complete one-sidedness. And on that note, just because this site can boast of not having a liberal bias, doesn't mean it is superior. Any bias at all provides only partial information; so don't think a conservative bias is something to brag about.

: Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth. The liberal Hillary Clinton, for example, will never say anything that might interfere with her political ambitions, regardless of what the truth is. And I don't mean to single her out; her approach is typical for liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Society evolves. You don't think the rules by which society lives should evolve to match that? Either way, only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Even the most specific statistics can be skewed, and unless you're giving only raw facts, and ALL raw facts, you're not giving the entire story. Is that really possible in the media? No. But deliberately giving only half the information available is essentially a lie of omission.
::Though I don't know your name since you didn't sign your comment, I like where you're going when you mentioned, "only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on," because that's exactly what you see and what you get from [[Wikipedia]]. It's what sets [[Conservapedia]] apart from the [[liberal bias]] and [[censorship]] practices used by the [[MSM]] and the [[liberal]] Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia understands and knows that, as Andy Schlafly said,
::{{cquote|Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. [[Conservative]] approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth.}}
::And that's the truth. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 04:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, Derek, it's a circular argument. Conservatism cannot lay claim to the truth any more than liberalism can. Despite what Andy would have you believe, there is nothing inherent in conservatism that makes it rely more heavily on objective truth. Both ideologies respond to truth and morality as they see it. Liberal extremists are just as convinced that their beliefs are based on the world as it is, as opposed by the conservative desire to blindly maintain the status quo. Only a truly egocentric person would believe either of these extreme viewpoints. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Insufficient, I think you missed the primary argument regarding the [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia]]. Two major differences include: (A) Conservapedia does not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. (B) Conservapedia allows original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Conservapedia does not restrict research for articles in that manner. Wikipedia, however, restricts research to that of mostly opinion articles written by journalists who are mostly or always liberal; and thus, censor facts because of their personal ideology. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::No, I did read the primary argument regarding the difference. I just happen to think that it's silly. At best, you've replaced liberal censorship of conservative facts with conservative censorship of liberal facts. I think that if that were simply the case and if it were done at the same level of Wikipedia, most people would be fine with this site (though still disagree). In fact, that's what people expect when they visit the site. However, the reason that so many people are opposed to Conservapedia is that you take the issues of Wikipedia and multiply them tenfold. You replace minor biases in wording with complete lies. You replace fringe sections of ideological dissent with complete removal of disagreement. You literally mock those who disagree rather than actually trying to prove them wrong (see Evolution Syndrome). Believe me, nothing about the articles on this site is more "intellectual." As one of those "educated liberals" that Andy dislikes so much, I can say that with confidence. It promotes a more emotional atmosphere, which is an entirely different thing. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 12:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes the truth can be disheartening to others and may cause some to lash out. The only consideration I can think of at the moment is that, in retrospect, I suppose it reaches a point where, after some individuals refuse to admit or believe the truth and at the same time omit the truth, there's no other reaction left from dissenters except to mock the opponent for their sincere foolishness. Here's a great example, regarding John Holdren telling Congress that the Earth could be reaching a Global Warming ‘tipping point’ that would be followed by a dramatic rise in sea level. I'm sure his false comments strike fear in some people, as it is intended to; however, since [[Climategate]] revealed the facts about these fraudulent claims of [[Global Warming]], it reaches to a point where this will occur:
::::::{{cquote|Milloy said the models used by climate scientists, especially those who contributed to the most recent United Nations IPCC report, do not take account of some huge factors -- including the sun and clouds. “The models exclude that big yellow ball in the sky and they also exclude those white fluffy things that float by,” Milloy mocked. “Both of those have dramatic effects on climate on a daily basis.”[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58316]}}
::::::Sure, you could simply ignore what Milloy is saying in spite of its truthfulness; or, contrarily, you could refuse to admit truth and throw up a smoke n' mirrors fit about how Milloy mocked Holdren for making such ridiculous claims. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

: You failed to grasp the point I was making. I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical of you to condemn Wikipedia for being biased, and then proudly proclaim your own bias. I've said twice now, all that means is that you're boasting of a lie of omission. Just because we agree that a liberal bias is a bad thing, doesn't mean you're better because you're biased to the conservative side instead. And if you agree with where I was going that it's wrong either way, then you agree that you are just as wrong with your conservative bias as many other "sources" are with their liberal bias. That's all I'm saying. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Also, BOTH sides have basis in truth. It's a matter of to what extent they ignore other truths that don't support their opinion that the factual basis they start out with builds up to falsehoods. And both sides are guilty of that. Not to mention, many things hotly debated in politics are either matters of perspective (i.e. moral issues, where there really is no clear-cut right and wrong, as everyone reaches their own set of values through their own life experiences), or matters of educated guessing (i.e. economic issues, where you can look at how it's worked historically and look at the various ways you think things will pan out, but you won't know exactly how an economic policy will affect the economy at any specific time or under any specific circumstances until it's been enacted). (Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Sorry about that. Having trouble articulating myself today.) Even for other issues, like environmental issues, it comes down to realizing there is some truth in both arguments. I guess my frustration is how dogmatic you are about conservatism, and I can't help but wonder how you can see that as a good thing. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::The problem with your logic is that you're assuming the only difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is strictly political. It's not. It's also the academic resources that are allowed in Conservapedia but not Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia allows opinions of journalists to be repeated there as though they are facts. Instead, Conservapedia requires authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' biased opinion. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

We're not HIDING a liberal view. This is CONSERVAPEDIA - if somebody wants to hear the liberal side of an issue, they're not going to come here. They go to wikipedia or metapedia or a site of vandals and troublemakers or some other liberal wiki. We exist to provide a conservative resource, and we fill that role very well. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Yes, but in admitting that, you are admitting to the aforementioned lie of omission, which is essentially the entire basis for the site. Not something to brag on. So if there's going to be an argument about how terrible a thing liberal bias is, it would by hypocritical not to acknowledge that you are doing the exact same thing with the other end of the political spectrum and thus are, by your own definitions, equally wrong.

Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this.
Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the selection of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A question, while yes Colbert reminded of this website, I do remember coming here a few years and it saddens me to see you are now "trustworthy." Doesn't seem like anywhere is truly "trusworthy" anymore :-( [[User:Stjimmy33|Stjimmy33]] 01:27, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It's probably worth noting that Colbert's "full of himself" act is an intentional parody of various right-wing political commentators (particularly Bill O'Reilly). I did find it funny when Andy discussed the number of viewers that this site receives. I'm sure that there are lots of people who prefer Conservapedia because it reinforces their worldview (woe to the poor youth that are brought up to think of it as unbiased alternative to Wikipedia), but I think that Andy seriously underestimates (or chooses to ignore) the large number of people who visit this site for personal amusement. Conservapedia was personally recommended to me as a "hilarious way to waste time" between meetings, and that is how all of my colleagues view it. Some of it's assertions are so extreme and hypocritical that many people believe it to be a satire in itself, comparable to Stephen's Colbert's act. Overall, the interview began relatively uninteresting, but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned. What Andy described (i.e., individuals monitoring each other to ensure authenticity) does exist; it's called Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism, but that is the price of having access to a wide breadth of knowledge with the benefit of self-monitoring. You can't have it both ways. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 01:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Insufficient, it's true that we block a lot more often than Wikipedia, and we don't give vandals 3 or 4 chances as Wikipedia does. However, for every vandal Wikipedia receives, there are a dozen legitimate users just waiting to undo the vandalism. Here, we have comparitively few editors trying to hold back a tide of vandalism, many of it quite shocking and disgusting, on this site, which is designed to be family-friendly. We ban users for vandalism, and we get a lot of it. But we do not ban because somebody disagrees with us, and I can prove it.
:A user, BMcP, has done tremendous work contributing to our astronomy articles, but repeatedly put old-Earth viewpoints in. He wasn't banned, though! Instead, he and I reached an amicable agreement where we would treat old-Earth and young-Earth views in seperate sections, and that is how it is done now. Conservapedia is full of examples of conflict resolution and fair treatment of users just like that. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::But, for a counter-example, look at the entire relativity talk pages. A handful of technically competent editors (including RSchlafly, who appears to be a solid contributor to the site, have been shouted down by one person: ASchlafly. The relativity page is not "the best of the public" but rather the personal (and scientifically incorrect!) opinion of ASchlafly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 10:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:''"..but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned."'' Insufficient, that remark of yours sounded exactly like the emails from CRU. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::''Best. Response. Ever.'' And so true! I think he'd fit right in with the [[Climategate]] scientists. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If that is the case Jacob, why does the article on evolution seem to neglect the vast abundance of supportive evidence in its favour? It certainly isn't hard to find someone that is able to make a valid argument for evolution, and yet the page not only makes no reference to it, but often falsely denies its existence. That page alone fully disproves Andy's claim that conservatism gives priority to truth. In the place of real facts, we get denial and an irrelevant picture of Hitler to ensure that everyone gets the idea (whether consciously or unconsciously) that evolution is evil. This is in spite of the fact that social darwinism (a misnomer) is actually not part of natural selection. I'm not saying that the effects of social darwinism should be brushed under the rug, but throwing an image of Hitler into an article about evolution is ridiculous and is fully intended to evoke emotion rather than thought. I could just as easily throw up an image of Osama Bin Laden in an article on the evils of religious faith, but that would be lazy. Once you have your facts about evolution, THEN you can worry about discussing it's social misunderstandings. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:First of all, that's not Andy's claim, that's what conservative MEANS. Second, there are no valid arguments for evolution. If you wish to deny that social darwinism came from regular darwinism, go do it on Wikipedia. Finally, throwing UBL on a page on relgiious extremism would be silly - there are many fundamentalist Islamic clerics who, despite whatever other shortcomings they may have, are not terrorists. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

That's exactly my point. There are even more evolutionists that, "despite whatever shortcomings they may have," aren't Hitler, thus making his picture silly. As for valid arguments for evolution, there are many...they're not hard to find either. Despite what this site would have you believe, there is fossil evidence to support it, it follows naturally from what we already know (beyond doubt) from animal domestication, and it's been shown experimentally in the lab with bacteria (some of the only lifeforms with short enough lifespans that we can observe it occur). Even if an individual chooses to ignore all of this evidence, which is fully within their right to do, it is still far more support than exists for any opposing argument. Yet it's all noticeably missing from the article on evolution...and I have a feeling that if I added it, it would quickly disappear. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:All your supposed arguments are wrong, just as any argument supporting a "flat earth" are wrong, because they draw a false conclusion. We don't put falsehoods into the encyclopedia. Hitler practiced the theory of evolution; any evolutionist who does not support Hitler may be morally admirable but lacks the courage of their convictions. Terrorism is not the practice of religious fundamentalism, it is the practice of a very specific kind of Islamic fundamentalism - there is a difference. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:50, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Your arguments just keep further proving the point I'm trying to make. Yes, there is a difference between religion and terrorism, just as there is a difference between evolution and eugenics. You don't get to hand pick your facts in order to support your conclusion while denying others. Hitler didn't practice "the theory of evolution," he practiced eugenics. It's possible to believe in evolution and be morally opposed to eugenics, just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and oppose terrorism. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that promotes eugenics, just as there is nothing inherent in religion that promotes terrorism. Yet in each case, the two occasionally coexist. Also, claiming that all my arguments are wrong without giving any clear reason doesn't actually refute the arguments. I could just as easily claim that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because all of the evidence in support of it draws a "false conclusion" (this argument can be made for ANY theory). However, I can deny it until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the evidence does exist, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system is in plenty of encyclopedias, along with evolution. Scientific theories are never "proven." They are only supported or refuted. In the case of evolution, there is strong support--far more than for any alternative explanations. If support for evolution draws a false conclusion, it is impossible to argue that support for creationism is any different. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 03:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::No, Insufficient, it is your argument that proves our point. You're basically stating that evolution is a fact based on "support". What kind of "support"? Scientific consensus? A lot of people agreeing that it's true? Where's the proof? All I've been seeing is Mr. Scientist ''saying'' that animal-A evolved into animal-B - he's ''saying'' it is true; he's not ''proving'' it's true. As to your argument that it was settled in the lab with bacteria or the animal farm with domestication, well, that involves the interference of man in the results. Sorry to break your bubble, but your explanations are just insufficient. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, actually I didn't claim that evolution was a "fact," and saying so is blatantly misrepresenting my argument. I'm saying that it is a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it...moreso than is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted by the scientific community. That is the definition of a good scientific theory. Any theory that doesn't have any evidence to support it isn't worth anyone's time. I don't actually care whether you or anyone else believes in evolution, but when you (or anyone) outright lies about facts, I'm going to call you on it. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is evidence to support it, and by discrediting evolution for "lack of evidence," you are actually doing even greater harm to the theory of creationism, which has significantly less (arguably none, but I will humour you and pretend there is some). That is why there is no scientific debate about the existence of evolution. Is it a fact? Like any scientific theory, we can never say yes, but it is likely beyond reasonable doubt. As for the interference of humans, that doesn't actually matter as much as you like to believe. Whether humans interfered or not, animal domestication has proven that the heritability of traits can lead to huge changes in animal appearance and behaviour, so that after many generations, it becomes generally unrecognizable. How does this shaping occur? By utilizing natural processes: to breed an animal in favour of a particular trait, you select animals that have that trait and allow them to spread their genes. That isn't evolution; that's genetics, and we already know that it occurs from something as basic as family resemblance (for the record, this is what inspired Hitler, not evolution). The theory of natural selection merely takes what we already know about genetics and takes it to the next logical step. Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to a domesticated animal also apply in nature? If an animal has some advantage that allows it to spread its genes more than others, why wouldn't it follow the same laws? If they are in fact God's laws, you're accusing Him of inconsistency without any clear justification. And with regard to Andy's argument about "evolution syndrome," that's just called a lazy argument. I could just as easily claim the existence of a "creationist syndrome," with the exact same symptoms, but I should hope that if I was that desperate for an argument, someone would call me on it. If my explanations are insufficient (using a self-disparaging username for a pun isn't nearly as clever as you might think...), then I recommend making some of your own. Perhaps you should educate me on what a good argument with solid, logical conclusions would look like. Because so far it has all been denial, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 13:32, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::What rubbish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 What is "wrong" about this? What doesn't make sense of the theory of evolution? Where are you saying "that's impossible"? Your, or my, inability to comprehend a theory doesn't make it lies. 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST) {{unsigned|Rutger}}
::::You don't have proof that Evolution is fact. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:::::No I don't as unlike many conservapedia regulars I don't claim to be an expert on every subject rather I defer to people who are and who do have evidence which you can continue to deny. I noticed you failed to answer to the questions though (you want to wait for Andy's script so you don't get anything wrong?) and now that Andy is trying to pretend this isn't a dictatorship those who dare question your fragile world view aren't being immediatly banned. How inconvienient for you. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? [[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected. For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.' However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down. Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form. For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence -- "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement. And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable. Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

: We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible. Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges. Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as [[evolution syndrome]] that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored. Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

public school education: i am a loyal fan of Colbert and would like to say a couple of things. 1) i am half republican and have democrat (my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat and i like different ideas from both groups.)2)i have gone to a private school my entire life and i have never gone to the office once. i have never been punished and i have received straight A's since i was in fifth grade. therefore by you guys saying that every Colbert nation member has been public school educated and are all rebellious is not only overly general but obviously not true. you undermine any true statement that you make by obviously making up information.

: Private school students are less than 10% of the population, so you're the exception rather than the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::have you actually taken a scientific survey or are you making up information that would suit your argument. How sad because no doubt some of the things that you say are true but by being intellectually dishonest you blur any positive potential education of your viewers. if however, your statistic is correct (please share with me the citation) that doesn't mean that only 10% of the Colbert Report viewers are privately educated.

::The article on [[evolution]] is a keeper! Don't change a bit: I love reading sentences like ''19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior'' (according to the source, both were partly right, partly wrong) [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:02, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::You'll like our entry on [[evolution syndrome]] even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If evolution is undeniable fact, how come we never evolved a third set of teeth? Since you cannot observe evolution, and you can observe many things that would be different were evolution true, it seems to me the sensible starting point is to assume that evolution didn't happen, and wait to be proven wrong. As that has not happened yet, I'll continue to believe evolution is just an justification for social Darwinism and policies like the Nazis enacted.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 18:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A third set of teeth? I'm not sure who taught you the theory of evolution, but just know that you are WAY off the mark. I'm starting to think that disbelief in evolution comes from a complete misunderstanding of anything about it. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:18, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Before you discount something, actually know what you are talking about. However, if people on here knew what they were talking about, most of this website, if not all of it, would not exist. As for your example, if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we don't have a third set of teeth because we don't need one. If it benefitted people, then if and when the mutation took place in our genes, that person would thrive and have more offspring than other people, promoting this gene in future generations. I can see why evolution might confuse you if you think that it "just happens."

:But it would benefit people; that's unambiguous. Teeth go rotten, get cavities, fall out. Only recently has it become commonplace for people to keep their teeth into middle age and beyond. You need teeth to eat, see how long a chimpanzee lasts in the wild with no teeth, so I would think someone who can regrow teeth as an adult would be at a huge advantage relative to those who couldn't. Plus a full set of teeth is more attractive to the opposite sex than not, no? My argument is precisely that it does benefit us, and so the fact that it hasn't caught on is proof that evolution doesn't exist. Your problem is your mind is closed to ideas that you don't already have. I concur with Andy that you might find the article on [[evolution syndrome]] useful.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 22:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Only recently has it become commonplace for people to '''live''' into middle age and beyond.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:All the more reason why a third set of teeth would benefit humans. Can anyone here over the age of 25 really claim that getting fresh teeth would not be nice?--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 00:11, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Captain2obvious- It's only common place for liberals who want to enact global warming legislation. Liberals want everyone to live in huts of straw and forfeit the modern ages which is bad bad bad for the Earth.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's what's called a strawman. If your arguement has no merit please continue to use them and think you're superiour. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Two things: First a question. HUH?; Secondly, I am not a "liberal", as you are so implying.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Why do people who state "I am not a liberal" never state what they actually call themselves? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The simplest reason would be that until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Oopsy, I read your reply wrong (middle ages / middle age). I never said you were liberal, just misinterpreted your remark.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Perfectly understandable Jpatt, its not the first misunderstanding that's occurred on the Internet.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative" Forgive me for my conflicted feelings between seriously asking exactly what that means and being simply baffled by the silliness of such a statement. Split the difference: what does that mean and how in the world could a brief visit to a single website change what you consider yourself to be? Also, you still haven't stated exactly what you consider yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Let me clarify a bit then. Visiting the site has not in not the slightest changed the way I think about myself. I still consider myself Conservative. However in my "brief" time visiting this website, and after reading several of the articles and discussions, has made me question whether other people would classify me as such.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

And I repeat, Gonzo: your understanding of natural selection is incorrect. With all due respect, it completely undermines your attempt to discredit natural selection when you don't know what you're arguing against. Evolutionists don't argue that humans (or any other species) are currently at their "peak" of evolution. People have this inflated self-view about the world revolving around them, but aside from a more advanced central nervous system, we're just another spec on the evolutionary time line. Your argument assumes that we are done evolving, which isn't the case at all (nor have I ever heard an evolutionist make this claim). That is partly why your "why aren't we the absolute best that we can be?" straw man argument doesn't work. Second, you are assuming that just because something is beneficial, that means that it will naturally occur through evolution. This is also not the position of modern evolutionists. If that were the case, beavers would have naturally evolved with chainsaws and gazelles would be able jump over rivers to escape predators. We don't automatically evolve everything that would be useful. We evolve based on the genes that are available in the gene pool. Several factors come into play here (minor random mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift...things that we know occur through research unrelated to evolution), but what is important is that evolution has to work with the genes that are available. Those that are beneficial will tend to spread, while those that are detrimental will tend to recede (though not necessarily disappear). Once again, this is fully in line with what I already described earlier with animal domestication. You can't breed a dog to fly, but you can create a lot of variability based on the existing gene pool. Finally, even if a gene does appear in the gene pool, it is more difficult to determine usefulness than you seem to think. For example, suppose that a gene did arise for an extra set of teeth (might as well work with the argument you've given). Who knows, maybe this gene does exist, did at some point, or some day will. However, it's not just a simple matter of extra teeth = good. These teeth have to come from somewhere. Your body needs to find the resources to create them. This can mean less calcium available for other sets of teeth (thus resulting in an overall reduction in a person's tooth quality), less calcium for bone production, an increased necessity for nutritious resources, etc. Everything costs something, and teeth aren't free. Every modification becomes part of a complex equation of costs versus benefits. And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution. NOTHING about evolution requires (or even asserts) that those hypothetical animals need to exist. Then again, I'm sure that this lengthy explanation will be brushed off as an "obsessive rant," because that is easier than taking it seriously... [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 12:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:''"And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution."'' - Insufficient. "Simplified?" Not so much. [[Liberal wordiness|Wordiness]] is what comes to mind. On the subject of [[evolution]], do you believe evolution happens because of ''environment'' or because of a ''need'', or is it simply a random gene mutation? ''Why does the Panda bear have a thumb?'' ;-) ...I think philosophical debates can be fun, but in many cases it doesn't prove or disprove anything, because there's usually a counter-argument to an argument. But it can bring up interesting debate topics. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::I apologize that it takes WORDS to explain a complicated process like evolution. You demand that I answer your questions, but then complain that it can't be done in two sentences or less? I'm sorry that the world isn't that simple. Believe me, what I gave was a simplified answer to Gonzo's question. You keep asking for more questions to be answered, yet you make it clear that the answers are above your head...which is it? I wouldn't be so judgemental of your position if you yourself even knew what (or why) it is. Instead you lure with baited questions, yet you have no interest in whatever answer you get. As I've stated before, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with evolution on the grounds of faith, but at least admit it to yourself. Don't pretend to be intellectual by faking interest in the other position. Don't outright lie about the facts and demonize those who choose to take a non-faith based search for the truth. If someone says that 2+2=4, don't argue that it's because of "human interference." I know that I could take you by the hand through each step of evolution and it wouldn't change your mind. One of creationism's central arguments is that it is infallibly true. I personally dislike circular arguments, so I choose to find my own path to the truth, but that is a personal choice. Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax (I bet Andy would host a parade), at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question. I understood and questioned what I believed because I would rather LEARN that I am wrong than be TOLD that I am right. I didn't limit my knowledge by trying to keep it simple (i.e., I wasn't afraid of words). Suppose that all of this was true and evolution was finally removed from the history books...would this really help your position for creationism? Not according to the unrealistic (and silly) standards that you've a set for evolutionists. Your demand for "proof" has always been doubly harmful to creationism. But who knows? With all of that objective truth that you claim to have on your side, I imagine that you guys must be hoarding a ton of undeniable scientific evidence. In fact, with all of this ample evidence that you have (because not having it would, of course, make you a hypocrite), why would you even worry about evolution? Show us the truth. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Woah..woah...hold up. No demands or complaints from me. Thus far I've only pushed buttons; testing the sensitive spots for a reaction. All I did was attempt to open a possible door for you, as another approach for you to argue for evolution. Hence the Panda's thumb theory, which was more of a test to see if you've heard of the theory. You might like it. Point being: the best argument(s) attempting to prove a point should always be willing to counter the best argument(s) on the other side, which of course are trying to prove different point. You say, ''"Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax, at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question."'' The logic you're using to make that conclusion, I find it interesting -- so, earlier I 'prodded' for more (or 'baited'). But it seems like you're judging me based on the community I enjoy being a part of, not on what I have said to you. I was only asking questions and looking for a logical, concise answer. Nothing more and nothing less. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 01:10, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::: I believe that that was a simplified version of evelotion. Books upon books have been written on the subject. It can be summed up in a few sentences, but then it is lacking in the crucial details you all demand.

::Exactly. And I'll point out that unlike my friends in the secular left, I don't pretend that I'm smart enough to know all of the mysteries of creation. I'm merely pointing out that it's hard to get my head around evolution when there's so many adaptations that would have been useful that we don't have, like extra teeth or the eradication of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors. But you're exactly right, I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable to understand everything about how the world works. That's why we have science, why we have the bible, indeed why we have this site, and it's all of our job to ask questions like I'm doing.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 17:38, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::So...you admit that you don't know the answer to these questions, but you smugly ask them with a clear answer in mind, denying any evidence to the contrary? I just wanted to make sure that I properly interpreted what you said. It's a bit tricky, given that I have to reconcile it with your previous comments. I agree, most people aren't scientists and don't have direct access to the evidence, but ignorance isn't a argument against evolution. Scientists do agree on evolution based on the understanding that they DO have. It sounds like you would believe in evolution if you practiced what you preached. You are also correct that science grows out asking questions...but what's the point if you don't intend to stay to hear the answer? [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've done my best to ascertain what the scientific community has to say about evolution. There are some who are in favor of evolution, there are some who are against it. My personal assessment is that secular humanist scientists are relatively more likely to let their own views distort their research, and I anyway find the creationist perspective more persuasive based on the facts. You should peruse our [[evolution]] entry. I certainly don't know everything, but my point was that people on the left are so sure of evolution that it might as well be some other, inaccurate religion.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 21:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::With all due respect, it doesn't seem like you want to hear what the "scientific community has to say about evolution." I'm not a biologist and certainly not an expert, but it is a side interest of mine, and I have been surrounded by scientists for several years now. Also, it is not difficult to find tons of information on evolution. Although I am not biologist, I am in a discipline that works closely with biology. In all of my years at multiple universities, I have personally never met a scientist that didn't believe in evolution. I don't deny that they exist, but they are actually relatively rare. What scientists DO sometimes disagree upon is the micro-level causes for it. There is ample evidence that animals changed over time and we know a great deal about genetics as it is, but there is still more to learn. This is exactly how scientific theories emerge and it is not in any way atypical. First, the scientific community learns that a process occurs (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun), and then disputes the reasons WHY this is the case. The same controversy emerged when the aforementioned earth-sun controversy arose, and it proved that the church isn't always right on matters of science. Despite what Conservapedia would have you believe, scientists are no more stubborn than are creationists. They're both equally stubborn, but for different reasons. Scientists are stubborn because everything that creationists say is in opposition to what we see from historical evidence. Creationists are stubborn because the infallibility of their argument is one of its central tenants. I am aware of the viewpoint of evolution as another form of religion, but I would argue that it is no more a religion than is believing that the earth revolves around the sun. By that logic, believing in anything would qualify as a religion, at which point the argument becomes meaningless. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 22:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::::"Insufficient", you need to get out more if you've never met a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution. And you need to respect logic more if you think consensus establishes truth. Better yet, I urge you to give equal time to the Bible, the most logical book ever written. Based on your postings, I bet you don't spend even 5% of your spare time reading or analyzing the Bible. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

It's nice to finally have all of the fallacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia in one easily accessible place. I think my favorite thing about Conservapedia is the use of the Bible in what seems like every article (I haven't read every article so perhaps this is a gross generalization. But when it comes to, say, immigration is the Bible really the best source?) I will probably be using this website when I have to write papers on current situations. It will be a lot easier to just come here than to have to seek out the few religious right wingers I know for a quote. {{unsigned|Writerfish}}

: Try taking our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]. You might break the record for the lowest score!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Registration==
You don't make it easy for a place that wants people to edit, do you? I tried after the show last night, couldn't figure it out, but managed to stumble upon one of your (stupider, and rather well hidden) policies on user names. I was able to register this morning, but if it hadn't worked, you probably would have lost a contributor forever. [[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Welcome. I don't believe stupider is an actual word.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the [http://conservapedia.com/Wiki/conservapedia Welcome Banner], as discussed on the [[New Welcome Banner proposal]] page. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Wow. Could you guys stop whining about registration already? I'd rather not be associated with people who can't pass the rigors of user-name creation. --[[User:Montag|Montag]] 21:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::The argument I'm making from the New Welcome Banner has more to do with creating a more welcoming entrance to the site, but also improving ease of navigation to pages that are valuable to newcomers. At one point or another every one of us was a wiki-newbie. While the easiest way to learn is through trial and error, I see no harm in facilitating the learning process by allowing new-comers to be more cognizant of the encyclopedia's rules, guidelines, how-to's, and other salient information that more advanced members already know about. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 21:59, 9 December 2009 (EST)

==Open letter to Conservapedia==
Steech, December 10, 2009.......................................................

I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).

There's some equivocating concerning the obvious bias (I think the device of substituting the word "truth" for "bias" is entertaining), but the corporation does not actually conceal its mission. Conservapedia is candid with the following facts: It represents the conservative socio-political viewpoint, it is alligned with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and it is hostile to opposing viewpoints. I note the distinction between this candor and react differently to Conservapedia than I do to a corporation like News Corp (Fox News), who boasts fairness and balance. Remember: Conservapedia does not promise balance. Yet Conservapedia is predominantly fair.

Despite an open allignment with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, Conservapedia is not contemptuous of other forms of Christianity, or even other religions. They dutifully note the basic interpretations of other scriptures like the Q'aran and Torah and tell the stories respectfully. They also include other denominations' interpretations of Biblical text without condemning them. Conservapedia articles suggest outside doctrine is foolhardy, but stops short of actually calling adherents fools.

What Conservapedia actually does is compile the conservative viewpoint in a way that incorporates most of the world's features and topics (from science to history to theology) in such a way that has the potential to reconcile problems (such as science versus ideology) and unify conservatives into a more cohesive bloc than was possible before technology of this scale. It is also a reference for non-conservatives to understand their fellow countrymen better. In my opinion, both functions have a benefit - even if I am an apostate by Conservapedia's rigid measure.

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia. Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example). Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion. However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission. If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s. Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.

Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009..............................................

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Steech, your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought. It is the anathema to conciseness, so it's obvious you don't like Conservapedia's rule to be concise. We've had that rule since the very beginning and it is essential to quality learning. Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words. Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:05, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::''we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges'' That's really impressive - at least, if you can give some corroboration for this claim... [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 17:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::BTW, on your user-page, you state ''My students have typically been admitted to their first choices in colleges '', followed by a list of fifty colleges. Do you think that all of these are top colleges? Only sixteen are linked to an article here at conservapedia, I suppose that these are the best. OTOH, you say that ''at least 6 students [were] admitted'' at ''Grove City College'', so taking this as an upper bound for admissions, I'd say that less than 100 students of you were helped by you into a top college. So, which other programs here at conservapedia are responsible for the next 100 successful applications?
::Otherwise: Shouldn't you leave such hyperbole to the liberals?
::[[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 17:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::ComedyFan, based on your assumption and opinion, let's say the teaching and education provided by Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia helped 100 students get into the college of their choice. That's 100 more students who benefited from the use and information from Conservapedia than what Wikipedia can claim. Conservapedia has assisted in educating 100% more students than Wikipedia - that's quite the accomplishment if you ask me. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a story awhile back about a kid who used Wikipedia as a reference for a paper - and failed the assignment for it. Yikes. If only Wikipedia held itself accountable for the quality of its articles... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I benefit from information on wikipedia...I mean, it would be foolish to use it for a project, but anyone with an open mind who intends on doing more research, or just needs some tiny fact on an ovbscure subject (history of video gaming), than its good. [[User:DerekSmalls|DerekSmalls]] 22:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands ''for each lecture''.

:::I didn't add that many of my students have won scholarships, and even graduated from college in 3 years.

:::How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::Wikipedia isn't supposed to have lectures and model answers for one. Its an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unlike this one, which is used as a tool for teaching homeschool kids. Wikipedia isnt out to change the world into something conservative or liberal, its there to be a quick look up for random information. DerekE, If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia...or metapedia or any other wiki type thing. They are not good sources, if you want to cite something use the original source.--[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 18:22, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia ... if you want to cite something use the '''original source'''."'' -- JAiken. You just proved my point. Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does. From your example, and based on the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia, if I were using both as a tool to help for researching purposes, Wikipedia would provide me with '''''zero''''' references to help assist further research; likewise, Conservapedia will provide a vast number of properly cited, original sources for academic purposes. Wikipedia is simply filled with opinion articles from journalists. If I wanted to go read ''The New York Times'' or HuffingtonPost, I'd go directly to their Web site. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::That's simply false. Wikipedia ''is'' propagating liberal falsehoods and censoring conservative truths, as illustrated by [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. One of the entries on that list discusses how Wikipedia editors have been 6 times more liberal than the general public.

::::If Wikipedia were designed to help people as Conservapedia does, it would be very different indeed. Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, just because Wikipedia doesn't set out to "help(?)" individual students, it is still a place of information. I'm sure that plenty of people who might otherwise no have access to information have benefited from it.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 21:29, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The ''National Enquirer'' "is still a place of information," so you can't be serious in proposing that as the test. Verbose gossip and/or liberal distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::: You may be right on that fact. Conservapedia is a place of "information," but "conservative" distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for the easily manipulated.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 21:33, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::You're long on rants, but awfully short on specifics ... because you have none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If you still want evidence that Wikipedia helps students, it has certainly helped me. And before you say that all it does is teach liberal bias, I'd like to see how you bias math. In fact, Andrew used math as an example of objective truth in the interview. Wikipedia has numerous and detailed articles on numerous math topics and is an invaluable resource on learning things that the public education system never teaches.
I have been unable to find any similar math articles on Conservapedia by the way.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 21:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The National Enquirer is in no way a reputable source of information. Nor is Wikipedia, unless you only use it for the primary sources it lists in the citations section. 6 times as liberal? Pray tell. How do you quantify liberality? Is it just some litmus test you randomly developed on this site or is there some sort of physical test? Tell me, if I support evolution, oppose gun control, and think Obama is a traitor, how many times more liberal am I than you? Would that number change if I was believed that evolution was false? What about if I wanted to burn all the books dealing with relativity because it distracts from reading the bible? --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:: I can give an example of a conservative distortions being used to cause harm, Uganda. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

In response to Edmund, your claim is not credible because it lacks specifics. Many liberals like Wikipedia's bias and would claim it has helped them simply to promote it further. That doesn't wash. I've looked at many of Wikipedia's math entries and can't say I've learned anything of value from any of them. They are not concise and clear, and many of them seem to deliberately obscure. Their entry on Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, omits how it relies on the Axiom of Choice. Wikipedia even deleted its entry on the important concept of an [[elementary proof]], and only added its current version after I pointed that out as an example of bias. Our explanation is better even now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)

It seems that this website is full of contradictions. An encyclopedia with an admitted bias, but says its trustworthy? Bias is inherent in everything but if we say that it is okay even good then there is no attempt to actually reach the unbiased truth. Bias is not good but shouldn't we be trying to move away from it and not embracing it. If this website says something that is completely at odds with what the rest of the world believed it wouldn't matter because there is an inherent interest in providing one side. That tends to come at the expense of truth. This website seems to dislike the MSM but if they so something with obvious bias someone can call them on it. If this website does something with obvious bias that's fine. If journalists are all biased in the main stream media then how do you get information? There are plenty of right wing commentators but you can't create facts out of commentary. People have to actually report the information. Why are there adults making fun of people who don't agree with them? I would also like to take issue with what truth is thought of as. Taking original intent in your view of the constitution and reducing government power does not make your political ideology any more truthful. Just as trying to make the government more powerful and interpreting the constitution more broadly does not make a political ideology any more truthful. I am mystified how believing these things adds to truth. Truth is what is actual reality. Neither changing government power or interpreting a piece of writing really leads to truth. --[[User:johnsm]] 21:30, 10 December 2009 (est)

:One thing i've noticed is that there has been no data actually presented in these cases aside from anecdotal evidence. Also, just because You, or someone, hasn't learned from something doesn't make it invalid, it just means that you either A) knew the information already and didn't need to re-learn it, or B) didn't take the effort to learn, and therefor passed it by.

:Also, conservative distortions, just like liberal ones, cause harm every day in the world. Take for example Iran, Sudan or Somalia [all of which follow 'religious conservative' governments], the deaths of Dr. Teller or Dr. Gunn, the thousands of children that died from measles [easily preventible by vaccination] last year, or any other examples you would wish me to point out. I won't get into the historical arguments here, to save space. That is not to say that liberalism doesn't have the same, or worse, negative effect on the world. The current Swiss ban on minarets comes to mind. I just wanted to point out that distortions from both sides are harmful and should be eliminated.

:And, to finish off, I just wanted to say it's good to be back. I'll be looking forward to debating with you all again. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 08:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Schlafly Brewery

2009-03-19T17:04:46Z

CodyH:

Schlafly Brewery is a beer manufacturer based out of Saint Louis, Missouri. The company touts itself as a local brand, and its drinks are available for purchase within a limited area of St. Louis<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Under 'Why can't I get Schlafly Beer in my area?'</ref>. The brand has found popularity with bars within its delivery range, and currently has two corporate-owned bars, the [http://www.schlafly.com/brewpubs.shtml Taproom and Bottleworks.]

==History==

In 1989 Dan Kopman and Thomas Schlafly, with the goal of producing a locally brewed beer that could compete in the nationwide marker, began to look for a building to house their operations in. The duo found the old Swift Printing Building, which belonged to a company that had moved from the building in 1969.

The two men began to set up their brewing company, and hired Dave Miller, a man who was known in the area for writing several books on the subject of microbrewing and for helping change state law to allow microbreweries to exist. In 1991, the company first opened it's doors to the public.

Since it's inception, Schlafly beer has found rapid success, placing it on a competitive level with many national breweries and expanding it's sales area. The current sales area extends to a 3-4 hour drive distance from St. Louis, which the company refers to as 'local'<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Under 'Why can't I get Schlafly Beer in my area?'</ref>.

Today, Schlafly beer is sold in seven different states, and has become a local favorite, including sales inside Busch Stadium [owned by a competitor, Anheuser-Busch] and widespread support in bars and taverns within their sales area<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/history.timeline.shtml</ref>.

==Related Works==

During the [http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_Presidential_Election%2C_2008 2008 Election], Schlafly Beers produced two tee-shirts to support both the Democratic and Republican candidates. The shirts, done in Blue and Red respectively, advertised ''Baracktoberfest Beer'' and ''Palin Ale''. Underneath each shirt was a small quote from Thomas Schlafly, and on the back of the shirt a message reminded voters to 'Please Vote Responsibly'<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/HTML/estore.vote2008tee.php</ref>.

In 2006, Thomas Schlafly published ''A New Religion in Mecca: Memoir of a Renegade Brewery in St. Louis'', about the founding of the St. Louis Brewery and its journey from a small local brewery to today. The book has received mainly positive reviews<ref>http://www.schlafly.com/history.timeline.shtml</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

Schlafly Brewery

2009-03-19T16:57:51Z

CodyH: New page: Schlafly Brewery is a beer manufacturer based out of Saint Louis, Missouri. The company touts itself as a local brand, and its drinks are available for purchase within a limited area of St...

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-03-18T16:43:32Z

CodyH: /* Black Holes */

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

== Merging ==

Conservative and I have been working on [[Atheist beliefs]], and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Black Holes ==

Have [[Black Hole]]s been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:If I'm not mistaken—and that ''does'' happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16356-2008-the-year-in-astronomy.html 2008: The year in astronomy].--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::What is "Big Astronomy"'s motive in falsifying data about black holes? Their existence has little, if anything, to do with the theory of the Big Bang and presents no problem for Creationism. [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 13:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Outrageous claims about black holes sell lots of magazines to lots of naive people. And let's not forget that [[liberals]] get a thrill out of [[deceit]] for its own sake alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::: So it's your contention that black holes don't exist? Despite the fact that [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA] have spotted them? Are you saying that NASA is lying? Given that your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=604724&oldid=604696 brother] also believes NASA, are you saying your brother is naive?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::: What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted" them, they '''inferred''' them. These scientists infer many other things which we know to be false. This reduces their credibility.
::::: Do you never disagree with your brother? Has your brother never been wrong? Has your brother never been tricked by men seeking to do evil, or men who were fooled, themselves? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::::::"What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted them, they "inferred " them." Only two problems with that statement: i) The staggering ignorance you have shown about the work carried out in the detection of singularity objects (are you even aware of how such objects are spotted? No, didn't think so); and ii) I assume that when you see a dog you only infer that it is a dog because you haven't carried out a full genetic check of the animal and the wealth of other evidence provided isn't good enough for you (oh, and if you are having trouble equating point ii with the discussion at hand - it's called a metaphor and is used as a teaching aid). As for the point about brothers is it your contention that RSchlafly is too dense, ignorant, dumb and stupid to study the evidence and come to his own conclusions? Are you saying that he blindly follows whatever somebody tells him to do or think? Is that how you have at the beliefs or knowledge you have? Are you saying that RSchlafly's knowledge of physics isn't good enough for him to independently study the evidence, despite the impressive depth of knowledge he has already shown about such matters on this site? Why do you equate the discovery of black holes with 'evil'? Do they threaten your beliefs in some way? If it does then why? No scientific discovery has ever threatened my belief and faith. Papal astronomers are perfectly happy with the fact that black holes exist and have been spotted, are you now claming to know more about science and faith than those who serve the church that is the foundation of your particular religion (assuming you are a christian)? Are you even aware that papal astronomers and the Holy See have stated that the possibility of alien life existing ''" does not clash with christian belief"''?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:08, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]…--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Well they didn't "discover" the big bang theory persay, though they have made many observations to support it. See [http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html here]. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)

Talk:Obama syndrome

2008-10-01T23:48:13Z

CodyH:

I wonder, if they like Obama regardless of his stance, then why ''do'' they like him? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:Because he is a well spoken fellow with nice teeth. And that is what interests the voting public. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:32, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::Can anyone provide any actual proof of this or is this just another "just for fun" posts? [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::He does have nice teeth, wow. That "Obama is hot" video also helped. The women love him. Oh snap, my comments are looking like the ones that I post on another wiki-type site. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 22:19, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I honestly don't like either candidate, but there's no way I can take this article seriously. The syndrome title is misleading, and the conditions are basically a blanket for anyone who votes for Obama or disagrees with the conservative viewpoint. That's not a serious mental condition, that's having an opinion. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 19:37 01 October 2008 (EST)

:::: No, there is a blind obsession demonstrated by some Obama supporters that is bizarre and difficult to explain. The obsession is unaffected by Obama's positions or beliefs. Those afflicted with this syndrome go immediately to try to censor information from Obama's entry on a wiki, such as this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Hasn't every president had some group of completely die-hard supporters that neglect to see their shortcomings, severe as they may be? Bush's prior alcohol and substance abuse, plus his AWOL from the service for two weeks were regarded by some as 'overlookable' offenses, though they were quite serious. Every presidential candidate has Zealots (for lack of a better term). Let's not forget those who continue to defend McCain's statements of 'Bomb Iran', and his verbal missteps on foreign policy and the economy. Once again, I would like to reiterate that I think both candidates are screwballs, and am still undecided on where my vote should go. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 19:48 01 October 2008 (EST)

== Bad wording? ==

This article gives the impression of Conservapedia trying to defend Obama. Should "editors" be changed to "vandals" or "enemies of the project" or something? --[[User:Devout|Devout]] 14:06, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:No. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:45, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
::Care to explain? --[[User:Devout|Devout]] 16:44, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Because you don't have to be a vandal or enemy to argue that Obama is not a Muslim. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:51, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion for a companion article ==

Obama Derangement Syndrome.

See also: [[Bush Derangement Syndrome]]--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 07:29, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't think that will be a popular suggestion. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 07:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Psychology==

Unless someone has a cite that this is an actual syndrome, I believe labeling it with the psychology category is very misleading. If no one objects or can not offer a citation, I will remove the psychology tag.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:08, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Obama syndrome

2008-10-01T23:37:52Z

CodyH:

Talk:Obama syndrome

2008-10-01T23:37:21Z

CodyH:

Talk:Religulous

2008-09-27T02:49:50Z

CodyH:

Is Bill Maher really outspokenly socialist? I've never heard him talk about his socialism, but he's obviously pretty liberal. Outspokenly liberal, perhaps? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

-Last time I checked, he was a libertarian. Not the same thing as a socialist, by a long shot. Bill Maher is outspoken in a lot of subjects. It doesn't make him a socialist. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:49, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-13T13:58:18Z

CodyH:

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2008-02-12T00:59:37Z

CodyH: /* Hatred */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== silly Coulter ==
Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

==M. Stanton Evans==
Good quote from Coulter on [[M. Stanton Evans]] new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824] We just need a place to put it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Hatred ==

Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

''Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]''

*Liberals = intolerant attacks
*Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

: That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for '''I hate it when people ...''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

::::: My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Christian Crusading], [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml?source=mostpop_story Anti-Semitic statements], and [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp Anti-Islamic sentiments]. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

== Isn't Coulter pro-choice? ==

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== First "Reference" ==

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:I added the refs [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
:::Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now ''adds'' to the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Opinion ==

The following paragraph needs some work:
:<nowiki>Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>
I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Love

2008-02-11T16:26:58Z

CodyH:

Am I missing something, or does this article make the rather ridiculous implication that love is a concept exclusive to Christianity, then go on to say that the ancient Greeks, who were around long before Christianity even existed, identified four different forms of love? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:18, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:Added a few things, to make the article a bit more tasteful. The implication of secular love is out, instead opting for the use of love in multiple religions. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:26 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Love

2008-02-11T16:24:31Z

CodyH: Enhanced article with other religions, detail.

[[Image:Watteau Peaceful Love.jpg|right|300px|Watteau Peaceful Love]]
'''Love''' is one of the basic emotions, decribed as an extreme affection for a person, an object, an idea, a country, a friend or a family member. Love is used to describe affection for many different things, but can sometimes be misinterpreted for [[Lust]].

Many faiths, such as Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, etc., believe [[love]] to be a positive trait, and the followers of these religions are asked to practice love for others as a general principle for a good life.

== The Five Grecian Forms ==

The ancient Greeks identified four forms of positive love:

* [[Philos]] - the love of close friends or brothers. [[Aristotle]] identifies several types of philos <ref>Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII</ref> which can include utility as well as shared characteristics and values. The word is often attached to groups of people who share a love of a common pursuit.

* [[Storge]] - the love of [[family]]. This would include [[patriotism]] - the love of country or homeland.

* [[Eros]] - carnal or sexual love. This would include [[romantic love]] but would also include [[lust]]. [[Eros]] is intended by God, as laid down in the Bible, to be enjoyed between a married man and woman.

* [[Agape]] - love which seeks the highest good of others, not just friends, family or brothers, but including enemies.<ref> Matthew 5:44</ref> This is considered by all major world religions to be the highest kind of love, although [[Buddhism]] would regard it as [[compassion]].

The fifth form of love is called [[Narcissism]], or self love. This word comes from the [[Greek myth]] of [[Narcissus]], who fell in love with his own reflection. Although [[Freud]] considered that everybody has some degree of narcissism, and that this is present in us from birth, <ref>Freud, Sigmund, On Narcissism: An Introduction, 1914</ref> if taken to extremes narcissism can be considered a [[personality disorder]].
<ref>http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:religion]][[category:culture]][[category:philosophy]][[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Video games

2008-01-29T00:10:10Z

CodyH: /* Popular Video games */

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by [[children]] and [[teen]]s. A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Many video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[Conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games such as [[Grand Theft Auto]] and [[Mortal Kombat]] are very violent and sometimes sexually explicit. Laws have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced{{fact}} or overturned by judges.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Violent video games are believed to cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed.<ref>http://www.lionlamb.org/violence_vid_games_facts.htm</ref>

In the USA, the majority of games carry ESRB ratings.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation]], [[Role-playing]], [[Sports]], and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" [[Role Playing and Third Person Shooting]], and some even create their own genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the eighties until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with it's original player base.

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in Particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a self-manned crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. Players of [[Grand Theft Auto]] may notice real-world company ads on billboards. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world. Companies such as Adidas Reebok and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre , such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, are rather used to tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]], in particular, uses God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion include [[Final Fantasy]], [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

==Popular Video games==
*[[Half-Life]] - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation.
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - Highly violent. 16-18 and up depending on country
*[[The Sims]] - mild violence, some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} They are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Final Fantasy]] - A very popular RPG series in both the United States and Japan. Some games contain mild violence and mild sexuality but these are mostly considered appropriate for ages 13 and up.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, fun game for everyone.
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*[[Portal]] - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game, responsible for every reference to the cake being a lie.
*[[Soul Calibur]] - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two swords, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control of the swords.
*[[Smash Brothers]] - Series of Nintendo Animated fighting games. Follows no specific story, mixing characters from different franchises in wide environments. Animated, no-blood violence.
*[[Resident Evil]] - Survival Horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks. Copious blood, gore, and violence present. As of date, all games in series have been rated M [17+].
*[[Harvest Moon]] - Farm Life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry. Until recent incarnations, games had no violence. Rated E [6+] to T [13+].

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:NHL Championship

2008-01-28T13:41:16Z

CodyH:

Should this be "NHL Championship" singular instead? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 14:14, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes. Go ahead and do an article, with stats, and see what it's like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the change! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 14:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Not too much to ask, but for an informational site, wouldn't we want some information? When was the Stanley Cup recognized? How does one win the cup? Stuff like that can make or break a page. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:41 28 January 2008 [CST]

Talk:Video game controversy

2008-01-28T13:14:10Z

CodyH:

As I get banned every single time I post a countering viewpoint related to this issue... can we '''please''' have some balance here? An article saying games don't cause mass murders? A BoJ graph saying that gun violence has gone down as game popularity goes up? Please? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:22, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:What I don't understand is why you seem to think gun violence is the only type of violence in existence. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:11, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::I agree with you, Barkikada, but the specific wording you used is a bit shaky, because there's no evidence of a causal link between increased violence in video games and a decrease of gun crimes. I have rewritten it (along with the first sentence, which without suggestion of a causal link was a non-sequiter) and linked to data which breaks down gun crimes by age group. Is this more agreeable Jinxmchue? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:50, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks. There's also no proof that playing video games makes you a murderer... but that's not going to stop [[Jack Thompson|some people]] from claiming the same. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:42, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::Oddly enough, that depends on the video game. For example, many of the people who defended Grand Theft Auto to the death (figuratively speaking) were quick to condemn Left Behind: Eternal Forces (even though the rumors of violence in Eternal Forces were greatly exaggerated). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 09:37, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::People said that the Left Behind game was too violent, but GTA wasn't? I never played the Left Behind because, uh, actually I didn't know there was one until I heard about it on Conservapedia. I don't think it was ever that popular ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:18, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Yes. People dismissed the complaints against the violence in GTA, but embraced the made-up claims of violence in Eternal Forces. People who wouldn't touch boycotts or bans normally quickly jockeyed for position to call for Walmart and other stores to remove Eternal Forces from their shelves. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:32, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::That was mostly because Eternal Forces was a Christian game, and therefore should not be glorifying violence. Grand Theft Auto on the other hand... Well, look at the title! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::But that's exactly the point. Eternal Forces ''doesn't'' glorify violence at all. GTA does. Guess which one the liberals viciously and falsely attacked as "promoting violence" and wanted to have pulled from stores. And guess which one they defended and hollered "censorship" when others said it should be pulled from stores. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I don't agree that Eternal Forces should be pulled, nor do I think GTA should. But really, when you buy a game with a crime as it's name, do you expect fluffy kittens and vanilla skies?
:::::::::Aside from that: Yes, because it was only liberals saying this and not concerned Christians. On the same note, no conservative organisation would ever find one minute of [partial nudity] and claim the game was a 30-hour graphic sex simulator. Definately not Fox vs. Mass Effect. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:43, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Actually, I think you'll find that's due to claims of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry in the game, not the violence (I have not played it myself, so I do not know if these claims are true), and the relative lack of popularity is down to it being...well...not very good, basically. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 17:24, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Added content pertaining to the Hot Coffee Scandal and the Manhunt 2 worrys, as well as a small spot about Virginia Tech. All of these events have dealt some blows to the gaming industry. People need to understand that the ESRB ratings are there for a reason. Maybe if Parents wouldn't give their kids 'GTA 4' for Christmas, they won't have to complain when little Johnny starts sealing cars. And the link between violence and video games is negligible. For example, millions of people play CounterStrike all over the world. Most of them are stable, sane people.

And I will state, here and now, that I take personal offense to anyone who says that gamers are violent, unstable people. I have friends and family who play games, and they are stable, healthy people with good family lives and values. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:11 28 January 2008 [CST]

Talk:Video game controversy

2008-01-28T13:13:25Z

CodyH:

Video game controversy

2008-01-28T13:07:28Z

CodyH:

[[Video game|Video games]] are often a controversial subject, particularly where children are concerned. Graphic depictions of sex and/or violence in popular games are often cited by conservative, anti-gun and anti-violence groups as contributing to children engaging in premarital sex or committing horrific acts of violence.

== Violence ==
Some argue that [[Columbine High School Massacre|Columbine High School]] mass-murderers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were driven to violence partially because they were fans of violent video games such as ''[[Doom]]'' and ''[[Duke Nukem]]''.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/320331.html</ref> Others disagree, arguing that, while video game usage has been increasing in recent years<ref>http://www.betanews.com/article/Nielsen_Video_Game_Usage_Up_18/1173124761</ref>, a similar trend does not appear in violence statistics.<ref>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm</ref> Cho Seung Hui, the man responsible behind the Virginia Tech shootings, was reported to have played games such as CounterStrike on his computer prior to the shooting, as well. No official link has been established by any investigating organization on this matter, however, and the link between violence and video games remains speculation.

== GTA: San Andreas 'Hot Coffee' ==

In June of 2005, an independent gamer found a patch in the PC version of the popular 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' game, which depicted two of the characters having virtual sex in the game as a side-part of the gameplay. The patch, named 'Hot Coffee', soon spread throughout the internet and the console versions using 'game enhancing' tools seperate from the game.

The patch soon spread through the internet, and came to the attention of critics. Those who were critical of the game soon attacked Rockstar Games [The developers] the [[Entertainment Software Ratings Board]][ESRB, responsible for rating game content] for the inclusion of the mini-game into the main game's code, even though it could not be accessed without subverting the original programming.

At the height of the scandal, Sen. [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] and [[Jack Thompson]] worked to ban GTA: San Andreas, as well as many other games, such as ''Killer 7'' and ''Bully'', going as far as starting investigations upon the ESRB and Rockstar Games. Rockstar Games soon stopped sales of the original GTA:SA, removing the original 'Hot Coffee' coding from the game build, then re-released the 'clean' version after the game was altered. A 'Cold Coffee' patch, released to address various problems in the PC version, also removed the code.

The impact of the scandal also reached past the original title, hampering the production and sale of other controversial games, including ''Manhunt 2'' and ''Grand Theft Auto 4''.

== Manhunt 2 Ratings ==

In August of 2007, Manhunt 2, a stalk-survival game released by Rockstar Games, was originally set to be released for an Adults Only 18+ [AO 18] label by the ESRB, due to some of the more gruesome torture scenes present in the game. Some compared the game's bloody aesthetic to movies such as the ''Saw'' and ''Hostel'' series of films, depicting copious amounts of blood, gore, and partial nudity. The game was soon backlashed by retail sellers such as Wal-Mart, Electronics Boutique, and GameStop for the AO rating, which made it prohibited to be sold in retail stores. The game was soon toned down, and after months of edits and changes to the game, it was released with mild fanfare in October of 2007

== References ==
<references />

== See Also ==
[[Jack Thompson]]

Talk:Computer

2008-01-10T22:32:13Z

CodyH: New page: I edited the bit about the Analytical Engine, and Added in a bit about ENIAC. Maybe someone will take the torch and do some stuff on their modern-day roles? After all, the children need al...

I edited the bit about the Analytical Engine, and Added in a bit about ENIAC. Maybe someone will take the torch and do some stuff on their modern-day roles? After all, the children need all the info they can get from a teacher-aid site, right? CodyH 0131 11 January 2008 (BST)

Computer

2008-01-10T22:30:26Z

CodyH:

A '''computer''' is a machine that is designed to perform [[mathematical]] calculations. Most computers manipulate data in the form of [[binary|binary code]], which consists of 1s and 0s.

Prior to the advent of computing machines, the definition for ''computer'' was a human being who performed complex mathematical calculations. This was accomplished with the aid of a manual counting device, such as an abacus or a slide rule, and was mainly used by traders and early bankers to keep a reliable record of funds

Charles Babbage, an English scientist who lived in the 19th century, has been credited as the designer of the original computer, the Analytical Engine, a programmable machine set to do calculations reliably up to six decimal places. However, the Engine was never constructed, being deemed as "had derived no emolument whatsoever from the government" by a member of parliament. His other prototype, the Difference Engine, was built after his death by his son.[http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Babbage.html]
[[Image:Babbage.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine.]]

The first computer comparable to the modern day computer, an electronic calculation machine, was the ENIAC. Built as a artillery support machine, it was unveiled in early 1946.[http://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/comphist/]

==References==
http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/126/lectures/history.html

[[Category:Information technology]]
[[Category:computer science]]

Video games

2008-01-08T18:24:20Z

CodyH:

Talk:Fundamentalism

2008-01-07T19:40:46Z

CodyH:

I created this article as a stub, because it was in the wanted page list. However, I wonder, do we have an article describing the beliefs of modern evangelical Christians? I would think such an article should be a centerpiece.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 11:52, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: Superb entry, MexMax!!!! I learned from your work. Yes, we should have an entry on evangelical Christians. I'll look first, and then start one if not already here somewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:04, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: Not to complain, but why was my edit reverted? I was simply making the article more informative. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 2238 7 January 2008 (BST)

Talk:Science fiction

2008-01-07T19:33:32Z

CodyH: /* Faith in Sci-Fi? */

== Dual-user Provenance ==
My edits to this article as of April 22, 2007, represent a dual submission of content of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on [[CreationWiki]]. My contributions to this article are based in part on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Science_fiction&oldid=70097 this version] of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work. I have, however, expanded on certain concepts that are more appropriate to a general encyclopedia than to one specializing in creation science and creation-informed history.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:58, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Hope you don't mind ==

I hope you don't mind that I made some edits to your article without first discussing them with you. The article is a excellent one, but I thought there should perhaps be a bit more emphasis on the exploration of philosophical and psychological questions as opposed to scientific theories, discoveries and inventions. I've been reading science fiction for more than 40 years, and have long been interested in both the entertaining and the serious sides of the genre. NitramNos 10:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:Those edits are friendly.

:My understanding of science fiction has grown a little dim; that article reflects all that I remember from the genre before I quit reading it.

:One thing puzzles me: from a literary agent who tried to place a manuscript of mine, I now learn that "science fiction" includes even a story that uses an out-of-the-ordinary machine as a plot device. Even a drama involving a spacecraft that [[NASA]] could build today now somehow qualifies as "science fiction." Do you agree? Before you answer, let me give you two titles that some might put in this category: ''Oxygen'' and ''The Fifth Man'' by John Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson. The first title even won the Christy Award for the best futuristic faith-based novel in its year.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I haven't read the stories you mention. I guess, strictly speaking, science fiction could encompass any story that involves a machine, invention etc. that has not yet been built, even if it is possible with current technology, particularly if the machine is crucial to the plot. I must confess, much of my favorite science fiction when I was in school consisted of collections from the science fiction pulp magazines of the 40s and 50s, though I equally enjoyed more serious works. NitramNos 11:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, obviously you know more about that genre than I do. Of course, we mustn't feature any content that would have violated the [[Motion Picture Production Code]]. That means, of course, that some science-fiction authors would be better not to mention.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:51, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, I'm not talking about scantily clad females. I'm talking about space ships jetting about the galaxy with ray-gun wielding heroes. NitramNos 12:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:That, of course, is what I meant by "escapist" science fiction. You mean Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, of course. Yes, those are acceptable, because they met the code.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Faith in Sci-Fi? ==

Ok, this one I gotta have some kinda clarification on this.

So far, from what i've seen of Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, and other "faith-based sciences", I can hardly see where religion can fit into any sci-fi worth it's salt. Could someone give me some examples of this 'faith sci-fi', if any exist? [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 2120 7 January 2008 (BST)
:[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/166/story_16633_1.html example]? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::[http://theofantastique.blogspot.com/2007/10/james-mcgrath-on-religion-in-science.html more] [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:16, 7 January 2008 (EST)

:The first one is a loaded answer. You could say the same about Star Trek, Stranger in a Strange Land, etc. The problem is, it is not the pivotal point in the show. Take it out, you still have BS-G (maybe not of the same quality, mind you). And in the second link, yes, there is connection. What is proposed on the main page is a faith-based sci-fi, not a sci-fi with faith inside it. And, honestly, unless you want to count ''Stranger in a Strange Land'' by Heinlein, then the examples wear thin. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 2233 7 January 2008 (BST)

Fundamentalism

2008-01-07T19:23:33Z

CodyH:

'''Fundamentalism''' is a term, often used in the pejorative sense, referring to [[evangelical]] [[Christian|Christians]]. The term originated in the middle of the 20th century, when a group of evangelical thinkers promulgated a pamphlet under the name, "The Fundamentals of Christianity," in an effort to define themselves as opposing the liberalization of American social culture during that time period.

Miriam-Webster defines fundamentalism as 'A movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching' [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Fundamentalist]

The word has, over the course of it's span, has come to mean any belief that has come to be oppressive or derogatory in nature to those who do not believe, such as the ''Islamic Fundamentalist'' of the Middle East, or the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas that stages anti-homosexuality protests at military funerals.

[[category:Christianity]]

Fundamentalism

2008-01-07T19:14:51Z

CodyH:

'''Fundamentalism''' is a term, often used in the pejorative sense, referring to [[evangelical]] [[Christian|Christians]]. The term originated in the middle of the 20th century, when a group of evangelical thinkers promulgated a pamphlet under the name, "The Fundamentals of Christianity," in an effort to define themselves as opposing the liberalization of American social culture during that time period.

Miriam-Webster defines fundamentalism as 'A movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching' <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Fundamentalist</ref>

The word has, over the course of it's span, has come to mean any belief that has come to be oppressive or derogatory in nature to those who do not believe, such as the ''Islamic Fundamentalist'' of the Middle East, or the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas that stages anti-homosexuality protests at military funerals.

[[category:Christianity]]

Talk:Science fiction

2008-01-07T18:20:59Z

CodyH: