Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Alarmist

2008-03-19T02:09:11Z

Hammet: no need to overgeneralize

An '''alarmist''' is one who tries to alarm others, especially by using exaggerations.

In modern usage, such people can fall under the following categories:
*Bloggers
*[[Global Warming]] alarmists
*Certain Left-Wing websites
*Nationalist governments which seek to gain the blind trust of the populist by way of inventing threats to national security. See [[Nazi]] and ''[[1984]]''.
*Extremists
[[Category:Politics]]

Civil union

2008-03-16T13:32:20Z

Hammet:

A '''civil union''' is a legally-recognized domestic union offered in some jurisdictions as a substitute for [[marriage]], generally to same-sex couples. Civil unions are intended to give same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities they would have if legally married, without extending marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

Civil unions exist in many countries, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Sweden. Civil unions and similar 'domestic partnerships' are offered in several U.S. states.

Civil unions generally confer rights including co-parenting, the ability to make decisions for a partner who is medically incapacitated, access to family health plans, and some tax benefits.<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html</ref>

Civil unions appeal to people of many political backgrounds because they offer some of the rights and recognition of traditional marriage to same-sex couples while keeping traditional marriage [[heterosexual]]. Some social conservatives condemn the idea of civil unions because they condone [[homosexuality]], which is immoral. There is also a fear that civil unions may be a first step towards the abolition of traditional marriage. This is especially true in those areas where there are civil unions, but there is still a push to have marriage redefined to include homosexuality. Other people believe that civil unions are not an appropriate substitute for the legalization of [[same-sex marriage]] in those cases where they do not offer the same rights as traditional marriage. Some also believe that civil unions create segregation between same-sex and opposite-sex couples under the umbrella of "separate but equal" services.

==See also==
*[[Same-sex marriage]]

==External Links==
*http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html What Is a Civil Union?, FactCheck.org, August 9, 2007

[[category:homosexuality]]

♫

2008-03-16T10:45:09Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Music

#REDIRECT [[Music]]

Talk:Pseudoscience

2008-03-14T15:44:31Z

Hammet: Evolution

{{protected|Conservative}}
[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]{{fact}}
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]{{fact}}
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]{{fact}}
*[[Ufology]]{{fact}}

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
::: If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used ''regularly'' as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Why isn't [[Theory of Evolution]] mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, [[phrenology]], it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a '''good''' example of pseudoscience, it's an '''important''' example of pseudoscience. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Template talk:Liberalism

2008-03-06T23:54:07Z

Hammet: /* Template name */

It seems that there are so many terms and articles related with liberal characteristics that there is a need for a navbox to link them all together. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 06:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:Hrm. I would say take out the ones which don't have "liberal" in the title, like global warming and gun control, as there's nothing inherently liberal about them. They are topics which have liberal and conservative viewpoints. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::HelpJazz, I added them as they are categorized under things like "Liberal Bias" or "Liberal Falsehoods". I know that this could be perceived as some sort of parody so I have refrained from using the template as I think it needs some discussion first. However, there are so many topics on Liberal-related issues that I think it is useful to unite them through a navbox. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:23, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:::Oh I didn't realize that! I should probably head over to the talk pages of those articles and petition for the removals of the categories.... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your navbox itself though, it looks very nice. It would be very helpful to keep track of all the liberal articles. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Template name ==

Shouldn't this be renamed/moved to Template:Liberal or Template:Liberals instead? Liberalism is a much specific subject and is not necessarily relevant to these subjects. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 18:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Liberalism

2008-03-06T23:53:50Z

Hammet: Template name

Lazytown

2008-03-03T00:47:33Z

Hammet: category

LazyTown is an Icelandic children's television program that features a cast and crew from Iceland, the UK and the US. The show has been highly successful, airing in over 100 countries, and more than a dozen languages.

The series originally started out in 1996 as a live-action play, under the title Áfram Latibær (Go on Lazytown!). After its success, a second play was made titled Glanni Glæpur í Latabær (Robbie Rotten in LazyTown). This second play introduced the character Glanni Glæpur (Robbie Rotten) as a villain. Instead of incorporating puppets, all characters were played by live actors, with the exception of a bird puppet in the second play.

During the shift to the televised version many changes were made. For example, Pixel (Goggi Mega) in the first play was a white male child, who was bald and had electronic goggles on at all times. In the second play, his image was changed to be more like a standard technical addict, with green hair, a silver shirt, and dozens of various electronics at his disposal. Some characters did not make it to the TV version, or were drastically changed.

[[Category:Television]]

Talk:Deceit

2008-03-03T00:25:16Z

Hammet: /* Reversion explained */

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


==Examples==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== contradiction in the definition ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Archiving ==

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

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

==Democratic Party==

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

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

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

==American Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Clinton==

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

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

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Another Example ==

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

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

== Catalog or informative article? ==

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

==Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Heading edit==

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

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

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

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

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberals and Deceit==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Piltdown Man ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism

2008-03-03T00:14:10Z

Hammet: /* Quotations */ remove possible vandalism

'''Feminism''' originally was an expression used by [[suffragettes]] - who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the late 1900s, however, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and the identical treatment of women in the military and in society as a whole. Specifically, modern feminists tend to:

* loathe [[chivalry]] and dislike men patronizing women, as in holding the door open for them
* dislike of macho activities, like male-only contact sports
* prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women
* oppose single-sex schooling and seek to abolish all-male ''private'' clubs
* express outrage at highly macho events, like the Duke lacrosse party or [[Tailhook]]
* insist that childrearing activities be shared equally by men and women in every respect, rather than a productive division of labor
* support [[affirmative action]] for women
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewife, and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required two-thirds majority on June 30, 1982. The majority of Americans felt that its passage would entail several consequences, including making girls subject to the military draft, the integration of single-sex schools, the possible recognition of homosexual marriage, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. {{fact}}

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, but feminist leadership largely failed to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

==Quotations==
"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" - Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies

"The feminista agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become [[lesbian]]s" - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

"The people I'm furious with are the Women's Liberationists. They keep getting up on soapboxes and proclaiming women are brighter than men. That's true, but it should be kept quiet or it ruins the whole racket" - Anita Loos

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage" - Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire" - Robin Morgan

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex" - [[Valerie Solanas]], [[SCUM]] founder (Society for Cutting Up Men)

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things" - Jilly Cooper, [[SCUM]] (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by [[Valerie Solanas]])

"Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human." - Robin Morgan

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

Q: People think you are very hostile to men A: "I am" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"Men use the night to erase us" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives" - [[Andrea Dworkin]]

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination" - [[Andrea Dworkin]], Pornography: Men Possessing Women

"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom" - [[Andrea Dworkin]], Pornography: Men Possessing Women

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

"It matters more what's in a woman's face than what's on it." - Claudette Colbert, quoted in Kindling the Spirit by Lois P. Frankel

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression" - Sheila Jeffrys

"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated" - Catharine MacKinnon

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" - Catharine MacKinnon

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs" - Catharine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale)

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" - Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in ''Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies''

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men" - Sharon Stone, Actress

All men are good for is f---ing, and running over with a truck - statement made by an University of Maine Feminist Administrator and overheard by [[Richard Dinsmore]] who brought a successful civil suit against the university in the amount of $600,000. Richard had objected to what was said and as a result was dismissed on the grounds of 'harassment'. He responded by bringing suit against the university, 1995 settlement

"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive ... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not [[Rambo]]" - Jodie Foster, Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race" - Sally Miller Gearhart, in ''The Future - If There Is One - Is Female''

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference" - Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males" - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them" - David Angier

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience" - Catherine Comins

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women ... he can sexually molest his daughters ... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE" - Marilyn French (her emphasis)

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter" - Marilyn French; The Woman's Room

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women ... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey" - Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign)

"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations ... obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign" - Marilyn French

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it" - Barbara Jordan, former congresswoman

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release" - [[Germaine Greer]]

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence" - Judith Levine, Authoress

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love' for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers." - Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts' ... includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder" - Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document (A Southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex)

((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The F---ing Molesters Society" (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory))

((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SH*T; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY))

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do" -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal" - Sylvia Fraser, Journalist

Catharine MacKinnon maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid - ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed - they're "hiding from the truth" The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose - Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al, tenets of misandric belief)

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment ... of persuading students that women are oppressed" - Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." - Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." (Both above quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, [[Heterophobia]])

"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." - Heather Hart 7

Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organisation for Women

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" - National NOW Times, January, 1988

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - feminist leader Sheila Cronan

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" - Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China" The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole ... patriarch!" - [[Gloria Steinem]], radical feminist leader, editor of Ms. Magazine

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" - [[Gloria Steinem]], editor of Ms. Magazine)

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women ... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world" - Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" - Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" - Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it" - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race" p. 67

"Women's chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy." - Estelle R. Ramey

"I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men" - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants ... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female

MAN: ... an obsolete life form ... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ...a contradictory baby-man ...

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning"

Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" "... Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down" Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 February, 1996

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism” - Catharine MacKinnon

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said <ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

<blockquote>"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref></blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.

Peter-Weyhl Theorem

2008-03-02T23:58:47Z

Hammet: New page: The Peter-Weyl Theorem states that: Let G be a compact topological group. For any G-invariant subspace V in L2(G), where G acts on the left, we consider the image of G in GL(V). I...

The Peter-Weyl Theorem states that:

Let G be a [[compact]] [[topological group]]. For any G-invariant subspace V in L2(G), where G acts on the left, we consider the image of G in GL(V). It is closed, since G is compact, and a subgroup of the [[Lie group]] GL(V). It follows by a basic theorem (of Élie Cartan) that the image of G is also a Lie group. From this follows that:

# The representative functions are dense in the space of all continuous functions, with respect to the supremum norm;
# The representative functions are dense in the space L^2(G) of all square-integrable functions, with respect to a Haar measure on G;
# The vector space span of the characters of the irreducible continuous representations of G are dense in the space of all continuous functions from G into C which are constant on each conjugacy class of G, with respect to the supremum norm.

==References==
[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Peter-WeylTheorem.html Peter-Weyl Theorem from Wolfram MathWorld]

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Real Number

2008-03-02T23:43:36Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Real numbers

#REDIRECT [[Real numbers]]

Real

2008-03-02T23:43:14Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Real Number

#REDIRECT [[Real Number]]

Liberals and friendship

2008-03-02T23:10:49Z

Hammet: rv

A '''liberal friendship''' is a friendship on [[liberal]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[liberal]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''liberal friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[liberal]] values.

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

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

==Criticism==
It is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is unlikely.

== See also ==

* [[liberal grading]]
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-01T22:13:00Z

Hammet: sp

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Come on ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to all above ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Cites==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-01T22:12:34Z

Hammet: /* Source */

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Come on ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to all above ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Cites==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ike Skelton

2008-01-15T00:20:45Z

Hammet:

{{uncited}}

'''Isaac Newton "Ike" Skelton''' (born 1931) is a [[Democrat]] who has represented [[Missouri]]'s 4th Congressional District in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] since 1977. Unlike most of his party, Skelton is socially conservative. He is one of the few [[pro-life]] Democrats in Congress. Skelton is also one of a number of Congressmen who has attained the rank of Eagle Scout.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Skelton,Ike}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]

The Fight in Lonely Gulch

2008-01-14T22:20:32Z

Hammet: New page: '''The Fight in Lonely Gulch''' is a 1914 classic silent Western movie starring Arthur Allardt and a young Otto Myers <ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447110/</ref>. ==References...

'''The Fight in Lonely Gulch''' is a 1914 classic silent Western movie starring [[Arthur Allardt]] and a young [[Otto Myers]] <ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447110/</ref>.

==References==

{{reflist}}

Calcium Sulfate

2008-01-14T21:23:43Z

Hammet: New page: '''Calcium Sulfate''', also known as '''Gypsum''', is an unusually soft mineral that occurs in nature.

'''Calcium Sulfate''', also known as '''Gypsum''', is an unusually soft mineral that occurs in nature.

Calcium sulfate dihydrate

2008-01-14T21:07:07Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Calcium Sulfate

#REDIRECT [[Calcium Sulfate]]

Gypsum

2008-01-14T21:06:44Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Calcium sulfate dihydrate

#REDIRECT [[Calcium sulfate dihydrate]]

Kernel (geometry)

2008-01-14T21:04:10Z

Hammet: New page: The '''Kernel''' in geometry is the set of all points ''a'' such that for all points ''b'' inside a polygon ''P'', the segment ''ab'' lies entirely within ''P'' <ref>http://www.patents...

The '''Kernel''' in [[geometry]] is the set of all points ''a'' such that for all points ''b'' inside a polygon ''P'', the segment ''ab'' lies entirely within ''P'' <ref>http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7305116-claims.html</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Post irony

2008-01-14T20:51:39Z

Hammet: one less of the most wanted list!

#REDIRECT [[Irony]]

Mitt

2008-01-14T05:22:40Z

Hammet: New page: '''MITTS''' is a consulting company based in Malta <ref>http://www.dgmarket.com/eproc/adminShowBuyer.do?buyerId=1318192</ref>. ==References== {{reflist}}

'''MITTS''' is a consulting company based in [[Malta]] <ref>http://www.dgmarket.com/eproc/adminShowBuyer.do?buyerId=1318192</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Pie

2008-01-14T05:03:45Z

Hammet:

'''Pies''' are a filled, baked [[pastry]] dish, distinguished from [[quiche]]s and [[tart]]s by the presence of a topcrust.

See also [[Pi]].

== Types of pie ==

Many things have been historically put into pies, such as "four-and-twenty-[[blackbird]]s", referring to the old rhyme of the same name. [[Meat]], [[fish]], [[fruit]], [[lard]], [[vegetable]]s or even [[cheese]], almost anything that is solid enough not to seep out during the baking process may be used.
*Steak and [[kidney]] pie is a traditional meat-based recipe.
*[[Pork]] pie is traditionally served cold.
*[[Apple pie]]
*Stargazy pie, a traditional [[Cornwall|Cornish]] dish is made with [[sardines]].
*Shepherd's pies are made with minced [[lamb]] and vegetables.
*Cottage pies contain minced [[beef]] and vegetables.

[[Category:Bakery products]]

Characteristic impedance of vacuum

2008-01-14T05:01:23Z

Hammet: New page: The '''Characteristic Impedance of Vacuum''' is 730 313 461 Ω.

The '''Characteristic Impedance of Vacuum''' is 730 313 461 Ω.

Jackie Chan

2008-01-14T04:57:51Z

Hammet:

'''Jackie Chan''' is an [[Asia|Asian]] actor. He is most known for his role as Chon Wang in the 2000 action-comedy [[Shanghai Noon]] <ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000329/</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Hollywood]]

Jackie Chan

2008-01-14T04:57:38Z

Hammet:

Jackie Chan

2008-01-14T04:56:41Z

Hammet: New page: '''Jackie Chan''' is an Asian actor. He is most known for his role as Chon Wang in the 2000 action-comedy Shanghai Noon <ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000329/</ref>. ==Refe...

Isentropic fluid

2008-01-14T04:52:15Z

Hammet: New page: An '''isentropic fluid''' is a fluid with a vertical or near-vertical saturation vapor curve. Category:Thermodynamics

An '''isentropic fluid''' is a fluid with a vertical or near-vertical saturation vapor curve.

[[Category:Thermodynamics]]

George Arnott Walker-Arnott

2008-01-14T04:47:00Z

Hammet: New page: '''George Arnott Walker-Arnott''' was a Scottish <ref>http://scone.strath.ac.uk/Service/SCONEService/ColnShow.cfm?uColnID=3544&uColnShowFilter=des,%20his,%20loc,%20age,%20sub,...

'''George Arnott Walker-Arnott''' was a [[Scotland|Scottish]] <ref>http://scone.strath.ac.uk/Service/SCONEService/ColnShow.cfm?uColnID=3544&uColnShowFilter=des,%20his,%20loc,%20age,%20sub,%20rel,%20opa</ref> [[florist]] who lived 1799-1868 and made important publications in the field<ref>http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/people/0000767_.htm</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Hippopotamus

2008-01-14T00:31:27Z

Hammet: /* Description */

{{Taxonomy
|image=Hippo.jpg
|kingdom=Animalia
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|superorder=Cetartiodactyla
|order=Artiodactyla
|family=Hippopotamidae
|genus=Hippopotamus
|species=H. amphibius
|binomialname=Hippopotamus amphibius
}}
'''Hippopotamuses''' (from the [[Greek]] for '[[River]] [[Horse]]') are large [[herbivore|herbivorous]] semi-[[aquatic]] [[African]] [[mammals]], and the only four-toed [[ungulate]]s. Once living in northern Africa, the hippopotamus is now only found south of the [[Sahara]]. The hippopotamus may have been the [[behemoth]] mentioned in [[Job]] 40:15-24. The hippopotamus and pygmy hippopotamus are the only living [[species]], a small number of [[extinct]] species are also known from [[fossils]].

==Description==
Hippopotamuses may weigh up to 7000 pounds and reach 5 feet in height. They live in schools {{fact}} and submerge themselves in rivers to protect themselves from the sun, coming up for air every 5 minutes or so, although they are able to remain submerged for up to thirty minutes.

===Diet===
A hippopotamus is a [[herbivore]], eating up to 150 pounds of grass in a night. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Reproduction===
Hippos are born underwater and have to swim to the surface to breath. They are also able to suckle underwater.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Hoofed mammals]]
[[Category:Vertebrates]]

Barton Fink

2008-01-04T21:22:37Z

Hammet: New page: '''Barton Fink''' is a movie produced by Ethan Coen and written by Joel Cohen. {{stub}}

'''Barton Fink''' is a movie produced by [[Ethan Coen]] and written by [[Joel Cohen]].

{{stub}}

Smelting

2008-01-04T21:20:25Z

Hammet: New page: '''Smelting''' is a process for extracting metal from ore. The material is heated up with carbon and the metal will dissipate from the ore. Category:Metallurgy

'''Smelting''' is a process for extracting [[metal]] from [[ore]]. The material is heated up with [[carbon]] and the metal will dissipate from the ore.

[[Category:Metallurgy]]

Anemia

2008-01-04T21:15:24Z

Hammet: moved from talk page

'''Anemia''', one of the more common blood disorders, occurs when the level of healthy red blood cells (RBCs) in the body becomes too low. This can lead to health problems because RBCs contain hemoglobin, which carries oxygen to the body's tissues. anemia can cause a variety of complications, including fatigue and stress on bodily organs. [http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/heart/anemia.html]

Limpet

2008-01-04T21:11:32Z

Hammet:

A '''limpet''' is a [[saltwater]] snail with a cone-shaped [[shell]]. [http://library.thinkquest.org/J001418/limpet.html]

Limpet

2008-01-04T21:10:59Z

Hammet: New page: A '''limpet''' is a saltwater snail with a cone-shaped shell. [library.thinkquest.org/J001418/limpet.html]

A '''limpet''' is a [[saltwater]] snail with a cone-shaped [[shell]]. [library.thinkquest.org/J001418/limpet.html]

Cellana strigilis strigilis

2008-01-04T21:07:32Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Limpet

#REDIRECT [[Limpet]]

Asteroid belt

2008-01-04T21:04:11Z

Hammet: New page: An '''asteroid belt''' is a region in space where the density of asteroids is high. There is an asteroid belt in our solar system, located between Mars and Jupiter...

An '''asteroid belt''' is a region in [[space]] where the density of [[asteroid|asteroids]] is high. There is an asteroid belt in our solar system, located between [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]]. The density of asteroids in this belt is low enough that multiple (unmanned) spacecraft has passed through it without accidents.

Composition

2008-01-04T21:00:35Z

Hammet: New page: '''Composition Studies''' refers to studies of writing and rhetorics. Composition scholars study the theory and practice of postsecondary writing instruction and the influence of d...

'''Composition Studies''' refers to studies of [[writing]] and [[rhetorics]]. Composition scholars study the theory and practice of postsecondary writing instruction and the influence of different genres and writing conventions on writing. [http://www.english.gsu.edu/index.php]

Magnoliopsida

2008-01-04T20:55:41Z

Hammet: Redirecting to Magnolia

#redirect [[Magnolia]]

Jerry Bergman

2008-01-04T20:51:44Z

Hammet: the organization, not the piece of the altar ...

'''Dr Jerry Bergman''' is a [[Young Earth Creationist]] and member of [[MENSA]], with a Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bergman, Jerry}}

Jerry Bergman

2008-01-04T20:50:25Z

Hammet:

'''Dr Jerry Bergman''' is a [[Young Earth Creationist]] and member of [[Mensa]], with a Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bergman, Jerry}}

Jerry Bergman

2008-01-04T20:49:56Z

Hammet: New page: '''Dr Jerry Bergman''' is a Young Earth Creationist and member of Mensa, with a Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp]

'''Dr Jerry Bergman''' is a [[Young Earth Creationist]] and member of [[Mensa]], with a Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp]

Heathen

2008-01-04T01:07:31Z

Hammet: auto-numbering is good

'''"Heathen"''' is an old word in Northern [[Europe|European]] [[Language|languages]] such as [[English]]. Its original meaning was probably "dweller-on-the-heath", similar to the original "country-dweller" meaning of the Southern European word "pagan". Some historians claim that, during the conversion of Europe to [[Christianity]], people who lived in the countryside held on to their ancestral folk religion longer than those living in the cities or towns. Because of this, the meaning of these words eventually changed to imply simply "un-[[Christian]]".

In current usage, "heathen" usually means one of four things:

# A person who does not follow of one of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s: Judaism, Christianity, or [[Islam]].
# A person who has no religion, often with an implication of immorality thrown in.
# A person who follows the pre-Christian religion of Northern Europe, based on [[Norse]] or "[[Viking]]" mythology. This ancient [[religion]] has modern adherents, who use "Asatru" as the formal name for their religion. [[Asatru]] heathens object to Meaning (1), above, as too general, and to Meaning (2) as simply wrong. Asatru is a [[government]]-recognized religion in some of the Scandinavian countries. Estimates of the number of people who follow this religion vary widely, but "several thousand" is a good guess in the [[U.S]].

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Lifeboat ethics

2007-12-09T22:55:56Z

Hammet:

You know, I detest this scenario, too (I always said, "Pick the meatiest ones, in case we run out of food"), but your "fallacies" are misplaced. With the possible exception of the first one, the others are often a fact in sea disasters--boat sinks, more swimmers than boats, problems ensue, lifeboats get swamped, more people drown. In the real world, of course, there wouldn't be picking and choosing going on--it'd be a first-come, first-serve sort of operation. Using the Titanic as an example is particularly misguided--much of the death toll can be attributed to a lack of lifeboat space, and (contrary to your scenario) there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, you've got to do better than this. As a lawyer, you know better than to refute a hypothetical scenario with the argument "this will never happen." Remember torts class? You were given a grade over nonsense that would never happen. Deal with the argument on the merits, and quit being retarded. --[[User:JamaicanJah|JamaicanJah]] 20:55, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:: In reply to RossC, that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats, and the rescue came quicker than some probably expected. The content page also identifies other flaws in the problem.

:: JamaicanJah, in torts class the hypotheticals should illustrate real controversies, not pure fantasy. There is no end to the absurdities if unrealistic problems are presented. Suppose a UFO landed and demanded a parent to give up one of her children? Which would it be? The proper answer is, "that's silly."

:: The root of the lifeboat dilemma is a lack of [[faith]], as the Biblical account illustrates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Regarding your Titanic claim and RossC's claim not being true:
::::''Mrs. Beane, interviewed shortly after the sinking, said she had seen members of the Titanic's crew holding men back at gunpoint from the lifeboat stations after the order was given for only women and children to board the boats. According to the interview, she said she had seen one man shot.''
:::(Source: Found [http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/326/ here] but can also be found [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E6D91138F933A1575AC0A965948260 here].) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship. In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Andy, please try to focus on what I actually clarified. Here's a summary, using quotes:
::::::RossC: "there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board."
::::::Andy: "that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats"
:::::The truth is that men were held at gunpoint, contrary to your claim that RossC is wrong. Also, you're arguing that there was more than enough space because he was pulled into a lifeboat, but it's just as likely that somebody had fallen out. Or do you think that the Titanic deployed their lifeboats with empty seats?
:::::In fact, your "more than enough men gave up their slot" and the cited "men held at gunpoint" are both solutions for the Lifeboat Ethics scenario of the Titanic: Ship sinks, not enough lifeboats, a decision has to be made who goes into the boats and who is left to drown. Yet you claim that "no one is likely to be in the situation described" and that such an event has the same probability as an encounter with an UFO. I could say more about the fallacies you list in the article, but I'm 95% certain that you would dismiss any criticism, so I'll do more productive things instead. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::I fear that this is getting off-topic in relation to the article, but...Titanic had a lifeboat capacity of about 1200. Only about 700 were rescued, meaning about 500 seats were empty. Many of the lifeboats went partly empty because of confusion and disbelief (early on, many thought it was only a drill), fear that boat capacity was overstated, and problems during launch (two were swamped upon launch, and floated off empty). Now, once the boats were away and people were in the water, there was discussion/argument in the part-empty boats about going back and taking on more passengers, but only one boat (#14) did; the rest feared that--yes--they'd be swamped by desperate people trying to get into the lifeboat. Now, regarding women/children, there was theoretically space enough in the lifeboats for all women and children (even as empty as they were), but about 30 percent of women and children passengers died, their theoretical spots in the lifeboats taken by men and crew (who should have been the last to go).

::::::But enough of that. Instead a practical suggestion: How about an example of (or a link to) the lifeboat dilemma problem, so that readers can better understand how it varies from reality, and how it pushes situational ethics, etc.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:05, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: The point is this: even on the [[Titanic]], the rarest event imaginable, there were plenty of lifeboat spaces after the volunteers gave up their spots. This underscores how the [[lifeboat problem]] is much a fantasy as a UFO invasion would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The strongest argument here is still that the lifeboat problem is based on lack of faith - when you let someone die to let someone else survive, rather than believing that God will either save you all. I believe that in such a situation, God is the one who should decide who lives and dies. The whole argument is based on lack of faith and even though it opens up some very interesting discussions, it's a horrible way to learn "morals" to children in public schools. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:55, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Is conservapedia advocating suicide?==

Schlafly - your 4th "logical fallacy" concerning the lifeboat scenario presents you with a significant challenge. You claim that the scenario would never happen, because people will be willing to not go into the lifeboat. These individuals would be engaging in [[suicide]], which is a [[sin]]. Do you really want to tell young children that view this site that they don't have to worry about difficult ethical decisions, because they can wait for people to kill themselves?

Seems like a terrible idea. --[[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:I think you have self sacrifice confused with suicide. There's a difference between sacrificing your own life to save the life of others (though a very small percentage of non-lifeboaters actually lived) and killing yourself for selfish reasons. Jesus could have gotten out of crucifiction but he did not -- I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a sin in doing so. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Jazz, I think you might have gotten yourself confused. Look at this encyclopedia's entry for [[suicide]]. There is no differentiation between suicide and self-sacrifice. You're just making that up out of thin air.

::Suicide is only bad when killing yourself for selfish reasons? Seriously? Where do you get this stuff?

::Additionally, Jesus didn't kill himself, the Jews did it. He did't put a spear through his own side. However, Schlafly wants us to sit around until an adequate number of people throw themselves into the ocean. Can you see the difference between the two examples,<s> or do you need me to type it really slowly for you</s>? [[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::You say "Jesus didn't kill himself, the Jews did it." Might I also say "those people on the Titanic didn't kill themselves, the water did it"? Both situations are one in which the sacrificer can make a decision which saves the lives of others, but which has a high certainty of their own death. It doesn't matter that a man-made object killed one and a force of nature killed the other.
:::Are you trying to argue that someone who saves others by throwing himself on a grenade (to use Ed's example) is the same as someone who kills himself just because? That a police officer dying in the line of duty is morally no different than a bank robber dying during a heist? If you truly believe this then I think we just have to agree to disagree. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:02, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The legal '''and''' moral definition of suicide goes beyond "deliberately causing one's own death". If I throw myself on a live grenade, to save another person's life, I do not expect to wake up in hell a few days later for this. Rather, "Greater love hath no man ...". Likewise, [[Socrates]] drank hemlock but this is not considered suicide even though he could have resisted this "form of execution". The Japanese [[kamikaze]] I'm not sure about, but no one doubts their self-sacrificial motives. Now, the anti-Israeli and anti-American [[suicide bomber]]s of recent years is yet another thing.

One thing is for sure, that sacrificing '''myself''' to save others is not a sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:36, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:Side note: [[Kamikaze]] redirects to [[Homicide Bomber]] (as does [[suicide bomber]], by the way), so the Kamikaze pilots were "combining the heinous sins of suicide and mass murder" (and if they still attended some sort of school, they would've even been [[young mass murderers]] :P), according to CP. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)

User:SacchoPavta, see if you can figure out the difference between suicide and sacrifice, and then get back to us once you figure that out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Lifeboat ethics

2007-12-09T22:55:31Z

Hammet:

You know, I detest this scenario, too (I always said, "Pick the meatiest ones, in case we run out of food"), but your "fallacies" are misplaced. With the possible exception of the first one, the others are often a fact in sea disasters--boat sinks, more swimmers than boats, problems ensue, lifeboats get swamped, more people drown. In the real world, of course, there wouldn't be picking and choosing going on--it'd be a first-come, first-serve sort of operation. Using the Titanic as an example is particularly misguided--much of the death toll can be attributed to a lack of lifeboat space, and (contrary to your scenario) there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, you've got to do better than this. As a lawyer, you know better than to refute a hypothetical scenario with the argument "this will never happen." Remember torts class? You were given a grade over nonsense that would never happen. Deal with the argument on the merits, and quit being retarded. --[[User:JamaicanJah|JamaicanJah]] 20:55, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:: In reply to RossC, that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats, and the rescue came quicker than some probably expected. The content page also identifies other flaws in the problem.

:: JamaicanJah, in torts class the hypotheticals should illustrate real controversies, not pure fantasy. There is no end to the absurdities if unrealistic problems are presented. Suppose a UFO landed and demanded a parent to give up one of her children? Which would it be? The proper answer is, "that's silly."

:: The root of the lifeboat dilemma is a lack of [[faith]], as the Biblical account illustrates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Regarding your Titanic claim and RossC's claim not being true:
::::''Mrs. Beane, interviewed shortly after the sinking, said she had seen members of the Titanic's crew holding men back at gunpoint from the lifeboat stations after the order was given for only women and children to board the boats. According to the interview, she said she had seen one man shot.''
:::(Source: Found [http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/326/ here] but can also be found [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E6D91138F933A1575AC0A965948260 here].) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship. In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Andy, please try to focus on what I actually clarified. Here's a summary, using quotes:
::::::RossC: "there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board."
::::::Andy: "that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats"
:::::The truth is that men were held at gunpoint, contrary to your claim that RossC is wrong. Also, you're arguing that there was more than enough space because he was pulled into a lifeboat, but it's just as likely that somebody had fallen out. Or do you think that the Titanic deployed their lifeboats with empty seats?
:::::In fact, your "more than enough men gave up their slot" and the cited "men held at gunpoint" are both solutions for the Lifeboat Ethics scenario of the Titanic: Ship sinks, not enough lifeboats, a decision has to be made who goes into the boats and who is left to drown. Yet you claim that "no one is likely to be in the situation described" and that such an event has the same probability as an encounter with an UFO. I could say more about the fallacies you list in the article, but I'm 95% certain that you would dismiss any criticism, so I'll do more productive things instead. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::I fear that this is getting off-topic in relation to the article, but...Titanic had a lifeboat capacity of about 1200. Only about 700 were rescued, meaning about 500 seats were empty. Many of the lifeboats went partly empty because of confusion and disbelief (early on, many thought it was only a drill), fear that boat capacity was overstated, and problems during launch (two were swamped upon launch, and floated off empty). Now, once the boats were away and people were in the water, there was discussion/argument in the part-empty boats about going back and taking on more passengers, but only one boat (#14) did; the rest feared that--yes--they'd be swamped by desperate people trying to get into the lifeboat. Now, regarding women/children, there was theoretically space enough in the lifeboats for all women and children (even as empty as they were), but about 30 percent of women and children passengers died, their theoretical spots in the lifeboats taken by men and crew (who should have been the last to go).

::::::But enough of that. Instead a practical suggestion: How about an example of (or a link to) the lifeboat dilemma problem, so that readers can better understand how it varies from reality, and how it pushes situational ethics, etc.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:05, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: The point is this: even on the [[Titanic]], the rarest event imaginable, there were plenty of lifeboat spaces after the volunteers gave up their spots. This underscores how the [[lifeboat problem]] is much a fantasy as a UFO invasion would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The strongest argument here is still that the lifeboat problem is based on lack of faith - when you let someone die to let someone else survive, rather than believing that God will either save you all. I believe that in such a situation, God is the one who should decide who lives and dies. The whole argument is based on lack of faith and even though it opens up some very interesting discussions, it's a horrible way to learn "morals" to children in public schools.

==Is conservapedia advocating suicide?==

Schlafly - your 4th "logical fallacy" concerning the lifeboat scenario presents you with a significant challenge. You claim that the scenario would never happen, because people will be willing to not go into the lifeboat. These individuals would be engaging in [[suicide]], which is a [[sin]]. Do you really want to tell young children that view this site that they don't have to worry about difficult ethical decisions, because they can wait for people to kill themselves?

Seems like a terrible idea. --[[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:I think you have self sacrifice confused with suicide. There's a difference between sacrificing your own life to save the life of others (though a very small percentage of non-lifeboaters actually lived) and killing yourself for selfish reasons. Jesus could have gotten out of crucifiction but he did not -- I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a sin in doing so. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Jazz, I think you might have gotten yourself confused. Look at this encyclopedia's entry for [[suicide]]. There is no differentiation between suicide and self-sacrifice. You're just making that up out of thin air.

::Suicide is only bad when killing yourself for selfish reasons? Seriously? Where do you get this stuff?

::Additionally, Jesus didn't kill himself, the Jews did it. He did't put a spear through his own side. However, Schlafly wants us to sit around until an adequate number of people throw themselves into the ocean. Can you see the difference between the two examples,<s> or do you need me to type it really slowly for you</s>? [[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::You say "Jesus didn't kill himself, the Jews did it." Might I also say "those people on the Titanic didn't kill themselves, the water did it"? Both situations are one in which the sacrificer can make a decision which saves the lives of others, but which has a high certainty of their own death. It doesn't matter that a man-made object killed one and a force of nature killed the other.
:::Are you trying to argue that someone who saves others by throwing himself on a grenade (to use Ed's example) is the same as someone who kills himself just because? That a police officer dying in the line of duty is morally no different than a bank robber dying during a heist? If you truly believe this then I think we just have to agree to disagree. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:02, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The legal '''and''' moral definition of suicide goes beyond "deliberately causing one's own death". If I throw myself on a live grenade, to save another person's life, I do not expect to wake up in hell a few days later for this. Rather, "Greater love hath no man ...". Likewise, [[Socrates]] drank hemlock but this is not considered suicide even though he could have resisted this "form of execution". The Japanese [[kamikaze]] I'm not sure about, but no one doubts their self-sacrificial motives. Now, the anti-Israeli and anti-American [[suicide bomber]]s of recent years is yet another thing.

One thing is for sure, that sacrificing '''myself''' to save others is not a sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:36, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:Side note: [[Kamikaze]] redirects to [[Homicide Bomber]] (as does [[suicide bomber]], by the way), so the Kamikaze pilots were "combining the heinous sins of suicide and mass murder" (and if they still attended some sort of school, they would've even been [[young mass murderers]] :P), according to CP. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)

User:SacchoPavta, see if you can figure out the difference between suicide and sacrifice, and then get back to us once you figure that out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)