Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Pisa

2010-03-05T17:38:51Z

Maquissar: Expanded the article a bit; will expand further.

[[Image:Pisa.jpg|thumb|200px|This area of Pisa is known as the Piazza dei Miracoli]]
'''Pisa''' is a city in Western Tuscany, [[Italy]], famous for its [[Leaning Tower of Pisa|leaning tower]]. A popular tourist venue and an university center, Pisa, which counts more than 87,500 inhabitants, is one of the most important cities of Tuscany.

== History ==
The exact origins of the city are unknown: different theories consider Pisa to have been founded by the Celts, the Greek, the Trojans, or the Etruscans. What is certain is that the city is very ancient, and even the Romans considered it to be so. In the Roman era, it served as an important military port in the Mediterranean; after the fall of the Roman Empire the city slowly grew in size and importance, being easily defendable because of its geography.
With the Crusades, the city became a very wealthy and powerful naval power. It is in these period, the cathedral, the famous leaning tower, and the baptistery were built with the wealth gained from the plunder of Muslim and Byzantine lands, and from commerce.
After a crippling naval defeat against Genova at the Battle of Meloria (1284), the city started a steady decline and never regained its former power. In 1406, Pisa was conquered by Florence. In the 16th century, no longer having any military or political power, Pisa became an important cultural and scientific centre.

<blockquote>
Mostly known for its leaning tower, Pisa has many more wonderful historical monuments and buildings dating back many hundreds of years and much of Pisa has retained its [[medieval]] appearance. Pisa is also known for its excellent University, which was established in 1343 and has become one of Italy's top institutes of higher learning. [http://www.pisa.world-guides.com/]
</blockquote>

== External links ==

*[http://www.italyguides.it/us/pisa/pisa_italy.htm Pisa]
*[http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/pisa.php Pisa Italy]

[[Category:Tourist Attractions]][[Category:Italy]]

Talk:Atheism and morality

2010-03-05T17:23:51Z

Maquissar: /* Fundamentally Incapable */

== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business. [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]

There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:
<blockquote>
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:

“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."
</blockquote>

That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate Comment ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph:

<blockquote> Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. </blockquote>

has nothing to do with Atheism. I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Unsigned reply: "It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists."

How? It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::If its verified then provide a reliable reference. But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fundamentally Incapable ==

The first sentence in this article says "atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality". Now, this is plain wrong. I obviously have morals. I don't go around killing people and doing cocaine and raping people. Just because I figured out and thought for myself and discovered my morales, and did not have them hand fed me from a 2000 year old book that promotes hating people different from myself. This article is full of libel and should be heavily edited.
:Libel, I have to laugh out loud at that. Throwing around words like that without any comprehension of their actual meaning makes you look incredibly ignorant.
:As to whether or not atheists have morals, they can't. What's more, atheists really don't have a purpose in life; it's all about me for them with no real consequences for their actions. Morals are based on religion; God has a reason for our existance and defines consequences for our actions, but since atheists don't believe in God, atheists have no morals. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 11:39, 5 March 2010 (EST)

::I disagree. Morals are, of course, influenced and promoted by religion, and no one can deny that; but atheists are not immoral by NECESSITY. There are cynical and selfish atheists, but there are also atheists and agnostics who love their fellow human, and have a purpose in life, although not believing in the existance of God, or in an afterlife. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 12:23, 5 March 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-28T23:18:03Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::I welcome more analysis. At least we have successfully moved past the [[liberal denial]] that there is no causal effect. There likely is some causal effect, as Maquissar apparently admits above. The issue now is merely how great the causal effect is, and let's continue to review the evidence. For Canada, the clearest data point, the causal effect seems strong indeed.

::The liberal denial remains of interest to me. Why are liberals so quick, and so irrational, in denying a causal effect? It's ingrained in the ideology. Liberals push socialism, abortion, homosexual behavior, limits on energy production, etc., etc., and they are so trained to deny that their ideology has harmful effects that they will jump into denial mode like Pavlov's dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 25 February 2010 (EST)

More research: I looked at how Scandinavian ("Northern Europe") has fared with its medal take under its increased socialism, and the answer is as expected: it has lost medal share.[http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/17/1314224/where-in-the-world-are-the-olympic]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:This whole debate is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Your own graph shows an increase in medals to the US in the last 50 years despite the US's increasing socialistic policies. In addition, these percentages fail to consider that there is an increase in the number of countries taking part in Olympic games, thus taking a percentage of the medals won. [[User:AndrewJay|AndrewJay]] 19:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::''(Please note that I disagree about any prevalence of irrationality, bias, denial and so on in liberals. I point this out merely as a note, lest by partecipating in this discussion I may seem to endorse it. In fact I personally reject it, but as it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss it I will not comment on it and I will stick to the "factors influencing athletic performance" debate.)''

::: About Canada - is it really performing THAT badly at the Olympics? I am not really following them, but it is in the third place, which seems to be consistent with past results. Actually, it is significantly HIGHER than past rankings, but that does not really matter, as the Olympic Games are held in Canada this year and host countries are always a little advantaged.
::: Anyway, let's, for the sake of argument, accept as true that Canada is performing very poorly. As I said before, tradition and geography plays the largest role in my opinion, but there are other factors influencing the performance of Olympic teams, from negligible to significant ones.
::: Here, in my opinion, are some of those factors.

::: * Random fluctuations in the number and quality of naturally gifted individuals - an item which is more relevant for countries with less population (A country with 1 million people will have a harder time picking 22 talented athletes for a soccer team than a country with 90 million people.)
::: * Availability of economic resources for developing the talent of said gifted individuals.
::: * Political initiative to promote sports and healthy lifestyles in young people.
::: * A mentality which promotes competition, mostly for individual sports but also for team-based sports.
::: * A mentality which promotes cooperation, for team-based sports.
::: * Enthusiasm and willingness to win - which may decline if players are already very successful and overpayed.
::: * Luck. It doesn't exist in statistics, but it exists in real life, and provides an edge which may change an average performance to a brilliant one - or which may completely ruin a performance of an otherwise talented athlete.
::: * Morale. This may depend on a billion different factors, which may be random and external. Just to give an example, an athlete whose wife died two week before of the Olympic Games will not play at his 100%, if he plays at all.
::: * Physical condition of players. A team with its key athletes injured, or recovering from injuries, will be disadvantaged.
::: * Level of competition. Many exceptionally talented athletes or teams would, under normal conditions, deserve to win, but unfortunately for them they meet someone who is even MORE exceptionally talented.
::: * Venue of competition. Bolivia plays very well at home, because of the high altitudes and the lower percentage of oxygen to which others may be not accustomed. Likewise, nations with a cold climate will fare a bit worse with very high temperatures, and vice versa.

::: This is just a partial list. As you can see, the variables are so many that it's very hard to claim that something is the "decisive factor". Personally, I believe that economics play a moderate to significant role in the athletic performances of a nation; that social and political issues play a minor role; and that religious or moral issues play a negligible role. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Maquissar, there's no logic to your argument. Listing many potential factors says nothing about the significance of the factors. The existence of "many" variables does not negate the ability to identify a cause-and-effect. There are "many" variables connected with lung cancer too. And one of those variables is clearly the major cause of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::: So, let me get this clear, without any room for doubt. Are you saying that cigarette smoking is to lung cancer what socialism and endorsement of homosexual marriage are to decline of athletic performance of nations? If so, we will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 20:13, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: Please don't forget to mention the recent Men's Olympic Hockey and Female's Olympic Hockey win on the main page as the American game win against the Canadians got a mention right before this silly cheap shot was posted. Then after you post that, be sure to post how a country that elected a Marxist-identifying, socialist focused president has embarrassed itself when going up against one of the most entrepreneurial nations on Earth. And American conservatives wonder WHY they get put down in the media as they attack their biggest trading partner and war ally which has a much more conservative party in charge then their own country has been able to get in the past twenty years. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 18:13, 28 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Well, Canada DID defeat the US in the hockey final, and it did well at the Olympics after all. I don't think it's fair to say that Canada "embarassed itself" at the Olympics. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:18, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:John 15-21 (Translated)

2010-02-27T23:28:13Z

Maquissar: /* Reversion explained */

== Reversion explained ==

First, we don't censor ideas here. Second, the edit comment did not justify the censorship.

Discuss rather than censor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: Well, it makes perfect sense for Christians to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, would have known about the modern-day political meaning of "right" and "left" 18 centuries before; so from a Christian point of view this objection is not valid. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 14:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::I'll add the non-political translation: follow my instructions is correct (right) or Jesus leads him to the '''right'''eous way, to success. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, this is a wordplay that's only valid for English, however, and not for aramaic or greek :P --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 15:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I disagree that the designation of "right" to connote "conservative" and "left" to connote "liberal" is purely arbitrary. John's use of the Greek word for "right" may be a political statement here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Well, THAT modern political meaning did not exist at the time yet. Of course you can claim that Jesus, being the Son of God, could know the modern meaning, but barring that, the word did not have that meaning at the time. Modern usage derives from French Revolution assemblies, in which those who favoured the Ancien Régime (monarchists, aristocrats, clergymen) would sit at the right, and those who were in favour of the republic, secularization, and the need for revolutionary changes, were at the left.

:Of course, in many cultures the "right" hand meant skill, strength, virtue and therefore "good", whereas the "left" hand meant lack of skill, clumsiness, and therefore came to mean "bad". That's because most people are naturally right-handed; the word "dexterity" comes from the latin word for "right" (as in "right hand"), and the word "sinister" comes from the latin word for "left". Many left-handed people were forced to become right-handed, because being left-handed was seen as something to be corrected rather than accepted... in Italy, it still happened as late as the early second half of the 20th century. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 16:02, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::"Conservative" is a modern word, but its underlying political meaning is as old as politics itself, and long predates the Gospel of John. John used the word δεξιός , which did have politically conservative connotations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Your claim seems to have some basis. My Ancient Greek dictionary lists δεξιός as meaning, other than "right-handed, "able", and "fortunate", also "cautious", which is consistent with the notion of "conservative" (i.e., resisting change). PERSONALLY, I am still not convinced that that was what Jesus meant, as Jesus did not speak Greek, but the hypothesis is etymologically plausible. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:28, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:John 15-21 (Translated)

2010-02-27T21:03:49Z

Maquissar: /* Reversion explained */

Talk:John 15-21 (Translated)

2010-02-27T21:02:54Z

Maquissar: /* Reversion explained */

== Reversion explained ==

First, we don't censor ideas here. Second, the edit comment did not justify the censorship.

Discuss rather than censor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: Well, it makes perfect sense for Christians to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, would have known about the modern-day political meaning of "right" and "left" 18 centuries before; so from a Christian point of view this objection is not valid. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 14:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::I'll add the non-political translation: follow my instructions is correct (right) or Jesus leads him to the '''right'''eous way, to success. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, this is a wordplay that's only valid for English, however, and not for aramaic or greek :P --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 15:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I disagree that the designation of "right" to connote "conservative" and "left" to connote "liberal" is purely arbitrary. John's use of the Greek word for "right" may be a political statement here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Well, THAT modern political meaning did not exist at the time yet. Of course you can claim that Jesus, being the Son of God, could know the modern meaning, but barring that, the word did not have that meaning at the time. Modern usage derives from French Revolution assemblies, in which those who favoured the Ancien Régime (monarchists, aristocrats, clergymen) would sit at the right, and those who were in favour of the republic, secularization, and the need for revolutionary changes, were at the left.

:Of course, in many cultures the "right" hand meant skill, strength, virtue and therefore "good", whereas the "left" hand meant lack of skill, clumsiness, and therefore came to mean "bad". That's because most people are naturally right-handed; the word "dexterity" comes from the latin word for "right" (as in "right hand"), and many left-handed people were forced to become right-handed, because being left-handed was seen as something to be corrected rather than accepted... in Italy, it still happened as late as the early second half of the 20th century. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 16:02, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:John 15-21 (Translated)

2010-02-27T20:14:52Z

Maquissar: /* Reversion explained */

Talk:John 15-21 (Translated)

2010-02-27T19:41:00Z

Maquissar: /* Reversion explained */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-02-27T19:10:42Z

Maquissar: /* How are these words conservative? */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:But... sorry, I may be a bit slow and English is not my mother tongue, but I don't get it. I understand how word expressing conservative values ("free market", "missile defense") are in the list; also, words used by everyone but coined by influent conservatives are in the list. But how are words like "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" conservative words? They are generic words. Sure, they are used by conservatives to describe liberals, or liberal policies, but they are also used by liberals to describe conservatives, or conservative policies. I mean, if tomorrow John McCain says that Obama is an awful president, "awful" does not magically become a conservative word overnight. What I am saying is that only words used EXCLUSIVELY, or MOSTLY by conservatives to criticize liberals should be in the list; "anti-Christian" and "leftist" are fine examples. But words that can, and are, used both ways, like "myopic" or "incoherent" should be ignored in my opinion. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::You've agreed that some words belong on the list, but quibbled about ... less than 1 or 2% of them. No one would expect unanimous agreement about the listing of every single example. But as to the examples you've disputed, if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::Well, it depends on the manner in which the search is conducted and the sample examined, and it also depends on the results. Also, do Supreme Court Justices fairly reflect the trend of the whole population? ... anyway, if you proved that, say, 85-90% of conservatives use "biased", and only 10-15% of liberals do it, then I'd concede that they are conservative words. If 52% of conservatives use "biased" compared to 48% of liberals, I wouldn't.
:::I may be wrong, as I don't live in the US and I don't know how life is there, but in my mind, "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" are generic words which can be used by either side to criticize the other. By the same standards, you could include "good" (definition: a word commonly used to describe conservative values and policies) and "bad" (a word commonly used by conservatives to describe liberal values and policies), but it wouldn't mean that they are "conservative words".
:::By the way, I only contested about 1% of the list because I only made an example and I did not go through it methodically. I would like more information about the following words, if any can provide it, accompanied by an explaination as to why they are considered "conservative words". Please note that I'm not yet contesting any of them, but merely requesting more information for now.

::: biased
::: conservation of charge (I only know it as a term describing a non-controversial scientific phenomenon. If it has a political nuance I ignore, let me know)
::: constant
::: correlate (by the way, "correlation" is listed by etymological dictionaries to date from 1561 AD)
::: counterexample
::: crackpot
::: cross-examination
::: decrypt
::: demagogue
::: despotism
::: double standard
::: editorialize
::: efficiency
::: hallmark
::: human rights
::: incoherent
::: individualism (just a quick note. I happen to know this because a part of my university thesis was about it. Individualism now is generally a positive word, but it was, if I remember correctly, first used by either Saint-Simonian or Fourierites - early socialists - and it had a negative connotation. I seem to remember that the word was born in France and then spread to the UK to the Owenites.)
::: myopic
::: optimism
::: ostensibly
::: productive
::: provocateur (if I remember correctly, it was a word used by work unions in the early 20th century to describe police or Pinkerton agents who infiltrated the labor force and committed something illegal, to give the police a pretext to intervene.)
::: self-defense
::: vandalism
::: veracity
::: volunteer
::: worldview

::: As regards the "Orwellian" words (newspeak, Big Brother, etc.) keep in mind that they are, yes, used to criticize Stalinism, but also that they were invented by Orwell, who was a democratic socialist.

:::Also, please note (this is unrelated to the rest of my post) that "wannabe" is usually spelt with only one "e", and "one-size-fits-all" is missing from the left column. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 14:10, 27 February 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Voltaire

2010-02-27T17:13:11Z

Maquissar: Reworded again.

[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Voltaire''' (pen name of François-Marie Arouet) (1694-1778) was a leading [[French]] [[philosopher]] in the [[Enlightenment]], advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He was a [[Deism|deist]] who criticized contemporary [[Christianity]] and often [[religion]] in general. Voltaire is sometimes called the "Father of the Enlightenment."

In ''Candide'',his chief work, Voltaire criticized a philosophical theory which was popular at the time, best expressed by [[Leibniz]], that stated the world was in its best possible state because it was in God's hands. To illustrate this point, he follows the story of Candide as increasingly terrible things happen to him until he loses his optimistic view of the world and his [[Christianity|faith]].

==Voltaire on Religion==

Voltaire was very critical of religion, and has been variously categorized as an [[atheist]] or an [[agnostic]], though in reality he was a [[deist]]. A death-bed admonition to a priest attempting to convert him that "Now is no time to be making new enemies" has also been misconstrued as meaning he was a [[satanist]], though evidence exists to show he was truly a [[deist]]. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Voltaire.html</ref> <ref>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/volthrrck.htm</ref> <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/836</ref>

===Judaism and Christianity===

In his ''Philosophical Dictionary,'' he fantasizes a conversation in which he asks a spirit, implied to be [[Jesus]], "Tell me if there have been peoples other than the [[Christians]] and the [[Jews]] in whom zeal and religion wretchedly transformed into fanaticism, have inspired so many horrible cruelties." The spirit replies "Yes, the [[Muslim|Mohammedans]] were sullied with the same inhumanities, but rarely; and when one asked amman, pity, of them, and offered them tribute, they pardoned. As for the other nations there has not been one right from the existence of the world which has ever made a purely religious war." Voltaire concludes by stating that he accepts Jesus as his only master, endorsing a simplified version of Christianity obeying the tenets of the Golden Rule but none of the dogma present in his era's churches. <ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volrelig.html</ref>

Voltaire also erected a Church in his hometown of Ferney (now Ferney-Voltaire) with the inscription "Deo erexit VOLTAIRE" ("Erected to God by VOLTAIRE"). This further shows that Voltaire was not so much at odds with Christianity as he was with the practices associated with it during his time. <ref>http://www.quielire.fr/elections_municipales_33947_commune_de_ferney_voltaire.html</ref>

===Islam===
Regarding [[Islam]], he said, <blockquote>
"I TELL you again, ignorant imbeciles, whom other ignoramuses have made believe that the Mohammedan religion is voluptuous and sensual, there is not a word of truth in it; you have been deceived on this point as on so many others.

Canons, monks, vicars even, if a law were imposed on you not to eat or drink from four in the morning till ten at night, during the month of July, when Lent came at this period; if you were forbidden to play at any game of chance under pain of damnation; if wine were forbidden you under the same pain; if you had to make a pilgrimage into the burning desert; if it were enjoined on you to give at least two and a half per cent. of your income to the poor; if, accustomed to enjoy possession of eighteen women, the number were cut down suddenly by fourteen; honestly, would you dare call that religion sensual?

The Latin Christians have so many advantages over the Mussulmans, I do not say in the matter of war, but in the matter of doctrines; the [[Greek]] Christians have so beaten them latterly from 1769 to 1773, that it is not worth the trouble to indulge in unjust reproaches against Islam.

Try to retake from the Mohammedans all that they usurped; but it is easier to calumniate them.

I hate [[calumny]] so much that I do not want even to impute foolishness to the [[Turkey|Turks]], although I detest them as tyrants over women and enemies of the arts.

I do not know why the historian of the Lower Empire maintains that [[Mohammed]] speaks in his [[Koran]] of his journey into the sky: Mohammed does not say a word about it; we have proved it.

One must combat ceaselessly. When one has destroyed an error, there is always someone who resuscitates it." <ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volmoham.html</ref>
</blockquote>

However, another entry in his seminal 'Philosophical Dictionary,' labeled "Reason," Voltaire has a character sharply criticize Islam:
<blockquote>"Your religion, although it has some good points, such as worship of the great Being, and the necessity of being just and charitable, is otherwise nothing but a rehash of Judaism and a tedious collection of fairy tales. If the archangel Gabriel had brought the leaves of the Koran to Mahomet from some planet, all Arabia would have seen Gabriel come down : nobody saw him; therefore Mahomet was a brazen impostor who deceived imbeciles."<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volreaso.html</ref></blockquote>

==Voltaire on Democracy==
Voltaire was a strong proponent of [[democracy]] in an age when [[republican government]] was practically nonexistent and kings ruled. In a dialogue between men of all the lands of his day, they lament "that there is not one republic in all this vast part of the world", and that they long to live in "The state where only the laws are obeyed". When the [[Brahmin]] is asked where that country is, he answers, 'We must look for it'.
<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volstate.html</ref>

However, he also believed democracy would only work in a small peaceful country.

Voltaire believed that any excesses or wrongs wrought by democracies were inherently less evil or harmful than those than could be inflicted by tyrannies.
"The great vice of democracy is certainly not tyranny and cruelty: there have been mountain-dwelling republicans, savage, ferocious; but it is not the republican spirit that made them so, it is nature.
The real vice of a civilized republic is in the [[Turkish]] fable of the dragon with many heads and the dragon with many tails. The many heads hurt each other, and the many tails obey a single head which wants to devour everything."

<ref> http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volstate.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:French Philosophers]]
[[Category:Deists]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]

Voltaire

2010-02-27T17:11:52Z

Maquissar: Inserted a space, reworded a sentence, and added a reference to Gottfried Leibniz.

[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Voltaire''' (pen name of François-Marie Arouet) (1694-1778) was a leading [[French]] [[philosopher]] in the [[Enlightenment]], advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He was a [[Deism|deist]] who criticized contemporary [[Christianity]] and often [[religion]] in general. Voltaire is sometimes called the "Father of the Enlightenment."

In ''Candide'',his chief work, Voltaire criticized a popular philosophical theory, best expressed by [[Leibniz]], that stated the world was in its best possible state because it was in God's hands. To illustrate this point, he follows the story of Candide as increasingly terrible things happen to him until he loses his optimistic view of the world and his [[Christianity|faith]].

==Voltaire on Religion==

Voltaire was very critical of religion, and has been variously categorized as an [[atheist]] or an [[agnostic]], though in reality he was a [[deist]]. A death-bed admonition to a priest attempting to convert him that "Now is no time to be making new enemies" has also been misconstrued as meaning he was a [[satanist]], though evidence exists to show he was truly a [[deist]]. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Voltaire.html</ref> <ref>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/volthrrck.htm</ref> <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/836</ref>

===Judaism and Christianity===

In his ''Philosophical Dictionary,'' he fantasizes a conversation in which he asks a spirit, implied to be [[Jesus]], "Tell me if there have been peoples other than the [[Christians]] and the [[Jews]] in whom zeal and religion wretchedly transformed into fanaticism, have inspired so many horrible cruelties." The spirit replies "Yes, the [[Muslim|Mohammedans]] were sullied with the same inhumanities, but rarely; and when one asked amman, pity, of them, and offered them tribute, they pardoned. As for the other nations there has not been one right from the existence of the world which has ever made a purely religious war." Voltaire concludes by stating that he accepts Jesus as his only master, endorsing a simplified version of Christianity obeying the tenets of the Golden Rule but none of the dogma present in his era's churches. <ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volrelig.html</ref>

Voltaire also erected a Church in his hometown of Ferney (now Ferney-Voltaire) with the inscription "Deo erexit VOLTAIRE" ("Erected to God by VOLTAIRE"). This further shows that Voltaire was not so much at odds with Christianity as he was with the practices associated with it during his time. <ref>http://www.quielire.fr/elections_municipales_33947_commune_de_ferney_voltaire.html</ref>

===Islam===
Regarding [[Islam]], he said, <blockquote>
"I TELL you again, ignorant imbeciles, whom other ignoramuses have made believe that the Mohammedan religion is voluptuous and sensual, there is not a word of truth in it; you have been deceived on this point as on so many others.

Canons, monks, vicars even, if a law were imposed on you not to eat or drink from four in the morning till ten at night, during the month of July, when Lent came at this period; if you were forbidden to play at any game of chance under pain of damnation; if wine were forbidden you under the same pain; if you had to make a pilgrimage into the burning desert; if it were enjoined on you to give at least two and a half per cent. of your income to the poor; if, accustomed to enjoy possession of eighteen women, the number were cut down suddenly by fourteen; honestly, would you dare call that religion sensual?

The Latin Christians have so many advantages over the Mussulmans, I do not say in the matter of war, but in the matter of doctrines; the [[Greek]] Christians have so beaten them latterly from 1769 to 1773, that it is not worth the trouble to indulge in unjust reproaches against Islam.

Try to retake from the Mohammedans all that they usurped; but it is easier to calumniate them.

I hate [[calumny]] so much that I do not want even to impute foolishness to the [[Turkey|Turks]], although I detest them as tyrants over women and enemies of the arts.

I do not know why the historian of the Lower Empire maintains that [[Mohammed]] speaks in his [[Koran]] of his journey into the sky: Mohammed does not say a word about it; we have proved it.

One must combat ceaselessly. When one has destroyed an error, there is always someone who resuscitates it." <ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volmoham.html</ref>
</blockquote>

However, another entry in his seminal 'Philosophical Dictionary,' labeled "Reason," Voltaire has a character sharply criticize Islam:
<blockquote>"Your religion, although it has some good points, such as worship of the great Being, and the necessity of being just and charitable, is otherwise nothing but a rehash of Judaism and a tedious collection of fairy tales. If the archangel Gabriel had brought the leaves of the Koran to Mahomet from some planet, all Arabia would have seen Gabriel come down : nobody saw him; therefore Mahomet was a brazen impostor who deceived imbeciles."<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volreaso.html</ref></blockquote>

==Voltaire on Democracy==
Voltaire was a strong proponent of [[democracy]] in an age when [[republican government]] was practically nonexistent and kings ruled. In a dialogue between men of all the lands of his day, they lament "that there is not one republic in all this vast part of the world", and that they long to live in "The state where only the laws are obeyed". When the [[Brahmin]] is asked where that country is, he answers, 'We must look for it'.
<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volstate.html</ref>

However, he also believed democracy would only work in a small peaceful country.

Voltaire believed that any excesses or wrongs wrought by democracies were inherently less evil or harmful than those than could be inflicted by tyrannies.
"The great vice of democracy is certainly not tyranny and cruelty: there have been mountain-dwelling republicans, savage, ferocious; but it is not the republican spirit that made them so, it is nature.
The real vice of a civilized republic is in the [[Turkish]] fable of the dragon with many heads and the dragon with many tails. The many heads hurt each other, and the many tails obey a single head which wants to devour everything."

<ref> http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volstate.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:French Philosophers]]
[[Category:Deists]]
[[Category:Enlightenment]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-02-27T15:45:38Z

Maquissar: Rewording

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:But... sorry, I may be a bit slow and English is not my mother tongue, but I don't get it. I understand how word expressing conservative values ("free market", "missile defense") are in the list; also, words used by everyone but coined by influent conservatives are in the list. But how are words like "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" conservative words? They are generic words. Sure, they are used by conservatives to describe liberals, or liberal policies, but they are also used by liberals to describe conservatives, or conservative policies. I mean, if tomorrow John McCain says that Obama is an awful president, "awful" does not magically become a conservative word overnight. What I am saying is that only words used EXCLUSIVELY, or MOSTLY by conservatives to criticize liberals should be in the list; "anti-Christian" and "leftist" are fine examples. But words that can, and are, used both ways, like "myopic" or "incoherent" should be ignored in my opinion. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-02-27T15:41:21Z

Maquissar: /* How are these words conservative? */

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:But... sorry, I may be a bit slow and English is not my mother tongue, but I don't get it. I understand how word expressing conservative values ("free market", "missile defense") are in the list; also, words used by everyone but coined by influent conservatives are in the list. But how are words like "myopic", "biased", "demagogue" or "incoherent" conservative words? They are generic words. Sure, they are used by conservatives to describe liberals, or liberal policies, but they are also used by liberals to describe conservatives, or conservative policies. I mean, if tomorrow John McCain says that Obama is an awful president, "awful" does not immediately become a conservative word. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:41, 27 February 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Atheism and Mass Murder

2010-02-27T03:05:58Z

Maquissar:

==Anti-Theism and Mass Murder?==

Not all communist were atheist. Stalin was an admitted deist, Hitler a self-proclaimed Catholic. They were both anti-theist (towards religion other than their own). This article should be renamed "Anti-Theism and Mass Murder"

=="Who cares what liberals think?"==

Personally, I found Malirin's contribution to this passage to be rather valid, and especially the first paragraph struck me as particularly well-written. The second paragraph could have used better wording. But to see this whole passage reverted with just a "Who cares what liberals think" saddens me. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 22:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Uranium

2010-02-27T02:31:02Z

Maquissar: Suggested change

{{Element | name=Uranium | symbol=U | anumber=92 | amass=238.02891 amu | state=Solid | class=Metallic | cstructure=Orthorhombic| color=metallic grey, reacts slowly with oxygen and rapidly with water. | date=1789 | discname=Martin J. Klaproth | origname=From the planet Uranus. | uses=For many centuries it was used as a pigment for glass. Now it is used as a fuel in nuclear reactors and in nuclear weapons. Depleted Uranium is used in casings of armor piercing artillery shells, armor plating on tanks and as ballast in the wings of some large aircraft. | obtained=Primary uranium bearing ores are uraninite, autunite, carnotite, samarskite and torbernite. }}
'''Uranium''' (U) is a heavy, naturally [[radioactive]], [[metal]]lic [[element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 92. Its two principally occurring [[isotope]]s are uranium-235 and uranium-238. Uranium-235 is indispensable to the nuclear industry because it is the only isotope existing in nature that is fissionable by thermal [[neutron]]s. Uranium-238 is also important because it absorbs neutrons to produce a [[radioactive]] isotope that subsequently decays to the isotope [[plutonium]]-239, which also is [[fission]]able by thermal neutrons.

"Depleted" Uranium is one of the densest materials known to man; As such, the United States uses it for bullets and tank armor. According to the WHO, normal civil or military use of depleted uranium is unlikely to lead to serious health problems. However, depleted uranium remains nonetheless a weakly radioactive, and chemically toxic metal. <ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050724094117.htm</ref><ref>http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/depletedu/health/index.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Elements]]
[[category:energy]]
[[Category:Metals]]

Talk:Uranium

2010-02-27T02:19:40Z

Maquissar: Suggested change - health effects of depleted uranium

== HEALTH EFFECTS OF DEPLETED URANIUM ==

This page suggests that depleted uranium has no significant negative health effects. However, the WHO claims that, apart from being weakly radioactive, it is also chemically toxic and has potential negative effects on human health. The article says that "neither civilian nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly above normal background levels of uranium", but that does not necessarily mean that depleted uranium is a harmless metal. I mean, if a child somehow found a depleted uranium bullet, I'd strongly advise against putting a string on it and wearing it as a necklace.
I suggest that this article should be changed to reflect the potential health risks.
Here is a link to the WHO page about uranium and depleted uranium. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

--[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 21:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:USS Agenor

2010-02-27T02:02:21Z

Maquissar: Suggested change of the name of the page

== NAME OF THE PAGE ==
This page should be renamed to USS Agenor. Agenor is the name of several different characters in Greek and Trojan mythology; this article is about a World War II repair ship. I'd change the name of the page myself, but I have no idea how to do that :)
--[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 21:02, 26 February 2010 (EST)

C. Gregg Singer

2010-02-27T00:00:12Z

Maquissar: Minor correction. (til --> until)

'''Charles Gregg Singer''' (1910-March 22, 1999) was a professor of history and an ordained Presbyterian minister and ruling elder. He had served as a professor of history at [[Wheaton College]] (1944-1948), [[Salem College]] (1948-1954), [[Belhaven College]] (1954-1958), [[Catawba College]] (1958-1977), and [[Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary]] from 1985 until his death in 1999. He held a Ph.D. from the [[University of Pennsylvania]]. In the 1970's he played a significant role in forming the [[Presbyterian Church in America]].

==External links==
*[http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n90-650793 Worldcat identity]

*[http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr.%5EC.%5EGregg%5ESinger 161 Audio recordings of various Singer activities - Sermons and classes]
:* [http://gpts.edu/resources/audio/mtolive.php?sa_action=mode_speakers&sa_filter=Dr.--SPC--C.--SPC--Gregg--SPC--Singer mirror site of audio selections]
*[http://www.freethechurch.org/Way/Library/singer.html a biography]
*[http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/singer.html Items of Manuscript Collection]

[[Category:Historians|Singer]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-02-26T23:56:48Z

Maquissar: /* Middle name in article title? */

{{PermProtected|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-02-26T23:56:29Z

Maquissar: /* Middle name in article title? */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-02-26T23:41:57Z

Maquissar: /* Middle name in article title? */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-02-26T23:35:34Z

Maquissar: /* Middle name in article title? */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-02-26T23:34:02Z

Maquissar: /* Middle name in article title? */

{{PermProtected|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Table tennis

2010-02-26T23:14:29Z

Maquissar: Corrected the spelling of two words.

'''Table tennis''' is a ball game similar to [[tennis]] and played on a flat table divided into two equal "courts" by a net fixed across its width at the middle. The object is to hit the ball so that it goes over the net and bounces on the opponent’s half of the table in such a way that the opponent cannot reach it or return it correctly. The lightweight, hollow, celluloid ball is hit back and forth across the net by small rackets or paddles. The game is popular all over the world. In most countries, it is a highly organized, competitive sport, particularly in [[China]] and [[Japan]]. In the [[United States]] it is commonly referred to as "Ping Pong",[http://www.nbcolympics.com/tabletennis/] however, this is a genericized trademark from 1901.

President [[Richard Nixon]] used "Ping Pong Diplomacy" with China in the 1970s, where players of both nations would compete.

[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Chicago Bulls

2010-02-26T13:39:30Z

Maquissar: Created page with '== Suggestion == "During the 90's, they won six Championships" is ambiguous; it sounds like they have won other championships besides those. I suggest changing it to something l...'

== Suggestion ==

"During the 90's, they won six Championships" is ambiguous; it sounds like they have won other championships besides those. I suggest changing it to something like "They won six Championship titles, all of them during the 1990's." Also, I'd suggest adding the team's foundation year (1966).

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-26T01:14:20Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-26T01:13:57Z

Maquissar:

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::I welcome more analysis. At least we have successfully moved past the [[liberal denial]] that there is no causal effect. There likely is some causal effect, as Maquissar apparently admits above. The issue now is merely how great the causal effect is, and let's continue to review the evidence. For Canada, the clearest data point, the causal effect seems strong indeed.

::The liberal denial remains of interest to me. Why are liberals so quick, and so irrational, in denying a causal effect? It's ingrained in the ideology. Liberals push socialism, abortion, homosexual behavior, limits on energy production, etc., etc., and they are so trained to deny that their ideology has harmful effects that they will jump into denial mode like Pavlov's dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 25 February 2010 (EST)

More research: I looked at how Scandinavian ("Northern Europe") has fared with its medal take under its increased socialism, and the answer is as expected: it has lost medal share.[http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/17/1314224/where-in-the-world-are-the-olympic]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:This whole debate is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Your own graph shows an increase in medals to the US in the last 50 years despite the US's increasing socialistic policies. In addition, these percentages fail to consider that there is an increase in the number of countries taking part in Olympic games, thus taking a percentage of the medals won. [[User:AndrewJay|AndrewJay]] 19:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::''(Please note that I disagree about any prevalence of irrationality, bias, denial and so on in liberals. I point this out merely as a note, lest by partecipating in this discussion I may seem to endorse it. In fact I personally reject it, but as it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss it I will not comment on it and I will stick to the "factors influencing athletic performance" debate.)''

::: About Canada - is it really performing THAT badly at the Olympics? I am not really following them, but it is in the third place, which seems to be consistent with past results. Actually, it is significantly HIGHER than past rankings, but that does not really matter, as the Olympic Games are held in Canada this year and host countries are always a little advantaged.
::: Anyway, let's, for the sake of argument, accept as true that Canada is performing very poorly. As I said before, tradition and geography plays the largest role in my opinion, but there are other factors influencing the performance of Olympic teams, from negligible to significant ones.
::: Here, in my opinion, are some of those factors.

::: * Random fluctuations in the number and quality of naturally gifted individuals - an item which is more relevant for countries with less population (A country with 1 million people will have a harder time picking 22 talented athletes for a soccer team than a country with 90 million people.)
::: * Availability of economic resources for developing the talent of said gifted individuals.
::: * Political initiative to promote sports and healthy lifestyles in young people.
::: * A mentality which promotes competition, mostly for individual sports but also for team-based sports.
::: * A mentality which promotes cooperation, for team-based sports.
::: * Enthusiasm and willingness to win - which may decline if players are already very successful and overpayed.
::: * Luck. It doesn't exist in statistics, but it exists in real life, and provides an edge which may change an average performance to a brilliant one - or which may completely ruin a performance of an otherwise talented athlete.
::: * Morale. This may depend on a billion different factors, which may be random and external. Just to give an example, an athlete whose wife died two week before of the Olympic Games will not play at his 100%, if he plays at all.
::: * Physical condition of players. A team with its key athletes injured, or recovering from injuries, will be disadvantaged.
::: * Level of competition. Many exceptionally talented athletes or teams would, under normal conditions, deserve to win, but unfortunately for them they meet someone who is even MORE exceptionally talented.
::: * Venue of competition. Bolivia plays very well at home, because of the high altitudes and the lower percentage of oxygen to which others may be not accustomed. Likewise, nations with a cold climate will fare a bit worse with very high temperatures, and vice versa.

::: This is just a partial list. As you can see, the variables are so many that it's very hard to claim that something is the "decisive factor". Personally, I believe that economics play a moderate to significant role in the athletic performances of a nation; that social and political issues play a minor role; and that religious or moral issues play a negligible role. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Maquissar, there's no logic to your argument. Listing many potential factors says nothing about the significance of the factors. The existence of "many" variables does not negate the ability to identify a cause-and-effect. There are "many" variables connected with lung cancer too. And one of those variables is clearly the major cause of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::: So, let me get this clear, without any room for doubt. Are you saying that cigarette smoking is to lung cancer what socialism and endorsement of homosexual marriage is to decline of athletic performance of nations? If so, we will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 20:13, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-26T00:52:03Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-26T00:49:25Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::I welcome more analysis. At least we have successfully moved past the [[liberal denial]] that there is no causal effect. There likely is some causal effect, as Maquissar apparently admits above. The issue now is merely how great the causal effect is, and let's continue to review the evidence. For Canada, the clearest data point, the causal effect seems strong indeed.

::The liberal denial remains of interest to me. Why are liberals so quick, and so irrational, in denying a causal effect? It's ingrained in the ideology. Liberals push socialism, abortion, homosexual behavior, limits on energy production, etc., etc., and they are so trained to deny that their ideology has harmful effects that they will jump into denial mode like Pavlov's dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 25 February 2010 (EST)

More research: I looked at how Scandinavian ("Northern Europe") has fared with its medal take under its increased socialism, and the answer is as expected: it has lost medal share.[http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/17/1314224/where-in-the-world-are-the-olympic]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:This whole debate is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Your own graph shows an increase in medals to the US in the last 50 years despite the US's increasing socialistic policies. In addition, these percentages fail to consider that there is an increase in the number of countries taking part in Olympic games, thus taking a percentage of the medals won. [[User:AndrewJay|AndrewJay]] 19:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::''(Please note that I disagree about any prevalence of irrationality, bias, denial and so on in liberals. I point this out merely as a note, lest by partecipating in this discussion I may seem to accept it. I do not accept it, but as it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss it I will not comment on it and I will stick to the "factors influencing athletic performance" debate.)''

::: About Canada - is it really performing THAT badly at the Olympics? I am not really following them, but it is in the third place, which seems to be consistent with past results. Actually, it is significantly HIGHER than past rankings, but that does not really matter, as the Olympic Games are held in Canada this year and host countries are always a little advantaged.
::: Anyway, let's, for the sake of argument, accept as true that Canada is performing very poorly. As I said before, tradition and geography plays the largest role in my opinion, but there are other factors influencing the performance of Olympic teams, from negligible to significant ones.
::: Here, in my opinion, are some of those factors.

::: * Random fluctuations in the number and quality of naturally gifted individuals - an item which is more relevant for countries with less population (A country with 1 million people will have a harder time picking 22 talented athletes for a soccer team than a country with 90 million people.)
::: * Availability of economic resources for developing the talent of said gifted individuals.
::: * Political initiative to promote sports and healthy lifestyles in young people.
::: * A mentality which promotes competition, mostly for individual sports but also for team-based sports.
::: * A mentality which promotes cooperation, for team-based sports.
::: * Enthusiasm and willingness to win - which may decline if players are already very successful and overpayed.
::: * Luck. It doesn't exist in statistics, but it exists in real life, and provides an edge which may change an average performance to a brilliant one - or which may completely ruin a performance of an otherwise talented athlete.
::: * Morale. This may depend on a billion different factors, which may be random and external. Just to give an example, an athlete whose wife died two week before of the Olympic Games will not play at his 100%, if he plays at all.
::: * Physical condition of players. A team with its key athletes injured, or recovering from injuries, will be disadvantaged.
::: * Level of competition. Many exceptionally talented athletes or teams would, under normal conditions, deserve to win, but unfortunately for them they meet someone who is even MORE exceptionally talented.
::: * Venue of competition. Bolivia plays very well at home, because of the high altitudes and the lower percentage of oxygen to which others may be not accustomed. Likewise, nations with a cold climate will fare a bit worse with very high temperatures, and vice versa.

::: This is just a partial list. As you can see, the variables are so many that it's very hard to claim that something is the "decisive factor". Personally, I believe that economics play a moderate to significant role in the athletic performances of a nation; that social and political issues play a minor role; and that religious or moral issues play a negligible role. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-26T00:48:10Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
::::::::::As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
::::::::::On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::::: The percentage of homosexual athletes in professional football, baseball and basketball is virtually zero (0). And, no, that cannot be explained by alleged "underestimating".

::::::::::: I addressed your point, now how about addressing mine: it's absurd to expect that the two variables, Olympic achievement and economic policy, are completely independent of each other. Prosperity and the luxury of athletic training are plainly related.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I'll start writing a bit more on the left of, if we go on indenting, we will soon only write three or four characters per line :P

My reply to you is, yes, it '''is''' absurd to expect that the two variables are completely independent. Economic prosperity, social and moral values... everything has an effect on something else. But the point is, the factors in play are just so many that some are bound to be almost ininfluential. To speak more clearly: about the poor performance of Spain at the Winter Olympics, the sociopolitical and moral values of spain have probably influenced the results 0,5%, and other factors (the fact that Spain does not have a significant tradition in winter sports, and the geography of Spain, chiefly) have contributed the remaining 99,5%. So Spain is not doing poorly because it is socialistic, or because it approves of homosexual marriage: Spain is doing poorly because it has always done poorly at Winter Sports.

On the other hand, Germany and Norway, respectively first and third in these Olympic games so far, are blessed by both geography and tradition; that's why they are doing well, in spite of the fact that Germany accepts "civil unions", and socialist Norway accepts homosexual marriage.

To sum it up, my personal point of view is that, while it is absurd to believe that social and economic policies have no effect whatsoever on the agonistic performance of countries at Olympic Games, their effect is subordinated to others; and as for the moral and religious values, I believe their effect on the athletic performance of a country to be marginal. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:04, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, are you Italian? 0,5% is hard to perceive in the US, where we use a decimal point instead, like so: 0.5%

:Of course prosperity and altheticism are related, but so are many other factors. To say that something is statistically significant does not always reveal a clear causal pattern (e.g. it has been shown, for example, that the historical length of womens' skirts and the performance of the stock market is statistically correlated, but this does not mean that every woman wearing a skirt of a given length will guarantee a certain stock market performance). We need better weighting criteria, as it were. For example, the Spaniards may not do so well at the Winter Olympics simply due to their Mediterranean climate.

:How has Spain done historically at the Summer Olympics? Has it gotten worse since 2000 (Zapatero's rise to power began around then)? There are two data points to compare with previous performance.

:I have one slight qualm with this analysis, however. The popularity of a sport within a given country is very dynamic. It is reasonable to assume that popularity spreads more than it dies off, so around the world we should see a general increase in performance (to human limits) in a given sport as time goes on (barring lulls in performance, which certainly do occur). Thus, if we note that a particular country like Spain has fared worse under Socialist politics, it is possible that this is due to the increased competition in the sport as popularity increases and more countries train better teams as the years go by, rather than to Socialist politics. In order to really show the effect of political tendencies on athleticism, such a characteristic must hold very broadly, which has yet to be demonstrated here. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 18:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::I welcome more analysis. At least we have successfully moved past the [[liberal denial]] that there is no causal effect. There likely is some causal effect, as Maquissar apparently admits above. The issue now is merely how great the causal effect is, and let's continue to review the evidence. For Canada, the clearest data point, the causal effect seems strong indeed.

::The liberal denial remains of interest to me. Why are liberals so quick, and so irrational, in denying a causal effect? It's ingrained in the ideology. Liberals push socialism, abortion, homosexual behavior, limits on energy production, etc., etc., and they are so trained to deny that their ideology has harmful effects that they will jump into denial mode like Pavlov's dog.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 25 February 2010 (EST)

More research: I looked at how Scandinavian ("Northern Europe") has fared with its medal take under its increased socialism, and the answer is as expected: it has lost medal share.[http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/17/1314224/where-in-the-world-are-the-olympic]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:This whole debate is a classic case of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Your own graph shows an increase in medals to the US in the last 50 years despite the US's increasing socialistic policies. In addition, these percentages fail to consider that there is an increase in the number of countries taking part in Olympic games, thus taking a percentage of the medals won. [[User:AndrewJay|AndrewJay]] 19:37, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::(Please note that I disagree about any prevalence of irrationality, bias, denial and so on in liberals. I point this out merely as a note, lest by partecipating in this discussion I may seem to accept it. I do not accept it, but as it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss it I will not comment on it and I will stick to the "factors influencing athletic performance" debate.)
::: About Canada - is it really performing THAT badly at the Olympics? I am not really following them, but it is in the third place, which seems to be consistent with past results. Actually, it is significantly HIGHER than past rankings, but that does not really matter, as the Olympic Games are held in Canada this year and host countries are always a little advantaged.
::: Anyway, let's, for the sake of argument, accept as true that Canada is performing very poorly. As I said before, tradition and geography plays the largest role in my opinion, but there are other factors influencing the performance of Olympic teams, from negligible to significant ones.
::: Here, in my opinion, are some of those factors.
::: * Random fluctuations in the number and quality of naturally gifted individuals - an item which is more relevant for countries with less population (A country with 1 million people will have a harder time picking 22 talented athletes for a soccer team than a country with 90 million people.)
::: * Availability of economic resources for developing the talent of said gifted individuals.
::: * Political initiative to promote sports and healthy lifestyles in young people.
::: * A mentality which promotes competition, mostly for individual sports but also for team-based sports.
::: * A mentality which promotes cooperation, for team-based sports.
::: * Enthusiasm and willingness to win - which may decline if players are already very successful and overpayed.
::: * Luck. It doesn't exist in statistics, but it exists in real life, and provides an edge which may change an average performance to a brilliant one - or which may completely ruin a performance of an otherwise talented athlete.
::: * Morale. This may depend on a billion different factors, which may be random and external. Just to give an example, an athlete whose wife died two week before of the Olympic Games will not play at his 100%, if he plays at all.
::: * Physical condition of players. A team with its key athletes injured, or recovering from injuries, will be disadvantaged.
::: * Level of competition. Many exceptionally talented athletes or teams would, under normal conditions, deserve to win, but unfortunately for them they meet someone who is even MORE exceptionally talented.
::: * Venue of competition. Bolivia plays very well at home, because of the high altitudes and the lower percentage of oxygen to which others may be not accustomed. Likewise, nations with a cold climate will fare a bit worse with very high temperatures, and vice versa.

::: This is just a partial list. As you can see, the variables are so many that it's very hard to claim that something is the "decisive factor". Personally, I believe that economics play a moderate to significant role in the athletic performances of a nation; that social and political issues play a minor role; and that religious or moral issues play a negligible role. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:48, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T23:04:43Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T22:07:47Z

Maquissar:

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T22:06:31Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

{{Debate}}

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

----

== Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics ==
Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.[[User:Hhollis|Hhollis]] 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The ''sine qua non'' of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the [[homosexual agenda]] with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

:The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the [[homosexual agenda]] who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--[[User:Cjohnston|Cjohnston]] 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Tiger WOODS (golf)
---Cassius CLAY (boxing)
---George BEST (soccer)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder:
---O.J. SIMPSON (football)
---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users:
---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer)
---Marco PANTANI (cyclism)
---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing)
---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist:
---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.<ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/all-time-standings/index.html</ref>.

:::If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/2004.html</ref> The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/historic/1992.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/medals-application.html</ref> Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1860710</ref> to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2008/medals/tracker/</ref>

:::So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Folks, you take [[liberal denial]] to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita [http://simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html here], we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. [[User:CharlieT|CharlieT]] 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::: I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

::::Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

::::So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

::::Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like [[Liberal Deceit]] to me. Yours, with an open mind, --[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

:::::I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:::::While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. [[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::::Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

::::It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

::::But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

<blockquote>
::::1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

::::::So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The [[Soviet Union]]] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of [[socialism]]) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian [[Socialism]] or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, [[communism]] advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

::::::Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

::::::p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

::::2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

::::::Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

::::3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

::::::Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

</blockquote>

::::Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--[[User:Rubashov|Rubashov]] 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is ''possible'' that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

:::::Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

*'''This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone!''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)
:With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

::::::Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.
Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM
Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:Judging by that data, not at all (or even to the contrary). In fact, when I think of certain sports (like nordic sports), socialist countries do tremendously well (even better per capita). I would, however, be disinclined to agree with some of your individual athletic examples (steroid usage can increase athletic performance, so it should not be considered). Additionally, I think it unfair to say that somebody who has provided data has not accepted certain results as a possibility. If this were the case, why provide the data anyway (unless you merely wish to tout the other hypothesis, which seems to be Andy's argument)?

:Rather than quibble about these things, we should attempt a more thorough investigation of the claim. A lot of things on CP get labeled as socialism, but this is a generalization (Surely the Scandinavian socialists would be loathe to call America under Obama socialist). If we look at public (govt.) holdings as a measure of socialism, we can call a lot of countries socialist (most of Europe and in fact much of the free world has public health care). Rather, we should look at countries individually and compare their performance under leftist governments to their performance under conservative governments. I think we should also distinguish between Winter and Summer Olympic games. Spain currently has a socialist government; how have they been doing recently as opposed to previously? China? Italy? I'm sure there are statistically significant political factors that affect athletic performance (e.g. a progressive governmental philosophy would seem more likely to encourage women to perform well in traditionally male sports than would an anti-feminist governing philosophy), but perhaps not the factors we've been analyzing. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 20:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::The above medal total is meaningless because the overall medal totals have also greatly increased. The ''percentage'' of medals is what matters. I would expect that Britain's socialism hurt its percentage medal take over the 20th century. Of course the medal take is not going to ebb and flow with every election, but long-run damage to the economy from socialism will likewise be reflected in long-run damage to Olympic competitiveness in a free society. All bets are off in totalitarian, communist nations where the training of athletes is compulsory and a high percentage of the GNP is put into it for national pride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:29, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:::I agree that the percentage of medals is what matters. So what should be done for this particular debate is to verify whether DEMOCRATIC countries - as we have excluded communist dictatorships - have done better or worse, in terms of PERCENTAGE of overall medals, during socialistic periods. This democratic socialistic period should be rather lengthy; for instance, in certain countries there is basically an alternation between the left-wing and the right-wing, which shows, more or less, that the population is more or less equally divided between "socialistic" and "free-market" policies. What we need is a democratic country which moved from, say, 30 years of conservativism to 30 years of liberalism, or vice-versa. What could be valid examples of such countries, if there are any?

:::Also, I must point out something that in my opinion is a logical flaw. In the main page news, you attribute Spain's 0 medals in Winter Olympics to socialism and the endorsement of same-sex marriage. However, you had before remarked that a country must not be compared to other countries, in order for statistics to be meaningful, but to ITSELF. Looking at Spain's history in the Winter Olympics, it has partecipated to every edition since 1936, and yet it has only won ONE gold medal (1972) and ONE bronze medal (1992). Two medals in over 70 years. This leads me to the conclusion that Spain is performing very poorly in the 2010 Winter Olympics not because it has endorsed socialism or same-sex marriage, but because it never was any good at Winter Olympics to begin with.

:::If your hypothesis that the endorsement of socialism and of same-sex marriage hurts the agonistic level of Spain is correct, then we should note a marked decrease of Spain's performance at the SUMMER Olympics over the next years, and a lower ratio of talented spanish athletes in all disciplines. But, as you told me before, it must be compared to Spain's past performances, not to other countries. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 07:38, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::Another thing to note is that, while the Winter Olympics are currently in the news, you needn't confine your study to them if you wish to measure the athletic prowess of any nation. The Summer Games are a rich source of data too, and don't forget other international competitions like the FIFA World Cup. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:34, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::I welcome more analysis. But it doesn't take more analysis to recognize how closed-minded many liberals are on this issue. A cause-and-effect is certainly possible, and anyone who refuses to admit the possibility is being irrational. Surely, for example, all should admit that there may be a cause-and-effect between Spain's socialism and its 20% unemployment rate. But I bet liberals won't admit that either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I am open to debate and willing to accept all possibilities; but keep in mind being "willing to admit the possibility" of a theory does not necessarily mean "accepting" said theory. One should always listen to the theories other people put forward, compare them with the factual data he has available, and form his own opinion. The fact that I don't agree with the correlation of same-sex marriage and Spain's poor performance at the 2010 Winter Olympics does not mean I am "a closed minded liberal", but simply that, having examined this matter with an open mind, I do not find myself agreeing with you on this particular point. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 10:07, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded. All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis. We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above. Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations. There may have been another above who was in denial as well. Such denial is itself worthy of studying. Why the refusal? Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society. Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other. Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity. Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: You said that traditional marriage plainly affects productivity, could you please provide any sources if any significant studies have been made? I'm interested in sociology among other things and I'd like to browse them.
As regards the correlation between heterosexuality and athletic achievement, wondering "how many homosexual exceptional athletes are there?" and expecting a 50/50 distribution would be instinctive, but I believe it would also be flawed logic. The comparison to make is between the percentage of homosexual athletes and the percentage of homosexual population. Said more clearly... if 5% of the population is homosexual, there should be 5% of exceptional athletes who are homosexual. Lower than that, and you could claim that homosexuality is harmful to athletic achievement; higher than that, and you could claim that homosexuality advantages athletic achievement, though things are never this simple and many other factors matter.

:::::::::: Also keep in mind that the number of homosexual athletes may be underestimated, as not everyone would be comfortable with revealing it to the public. This would be particularly true in team sports: imagine a football player revealing to his team that he is homosexual, it would probably make many squad members - with whom he shares changing rooms and showers - uncomfortable, so he is more likely to keep it private instead of making it public.
On the other hand, statistic surveys on the percentage of homosexual population should not suffer from the same problem, as they are usually done anonymously, and homosexual people would probably be more willing to answer truthfully.

:::::::::: So, keeping in mind these issues, the question is - is there a percentage of homosexual exceptional athletes which is comparable to the average percentage of homosexual people in the world? Personally, the only high-level openly homosexual athlete I can think of is Martina Navratilova, but I don't know much about sports. Any others? --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:06, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Tom Lehrer

2010-02-25T20:20:20Z

Maquissar:

I think his songs are funny, but I'm not sure he was anti-conservative. His songs were full of dark humor, but aside from "So long mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" and (maybe) "Vatican Rag" he didn't strike me as political.

Maybe we can start over some day. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:56, 25 February 2010 (EST)

: Just a question: I saw a few articles deleted as "pop culture". Are articles concerning things that belong to pop culture (such as movies, modern music, etc) unwelcome here? I'm asking so I know which articles I can create and which ones I can't :) --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 15:20, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T15:07:22Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

Darkness at Noon

2010-02-25T13:27:21Z

Maquissar: Created page with ''''Darkness at Noon''' (Original title ''Sonnenfinsternis'') is a dystopian novel by Arthur Koestler. The novel tells the story of Rubashov, a 1917 Revolutionary who is a...'

'''Darkness at Noon''' (Original title ''Sonnenfinsternis'') is a [[dystopian]] novel by [[Arthur Koestler]]. The novel tells the story of Rubashov, a 1917 Revolutionary who is arrested and tried for treason by the [[Soviet]] government during the [[Moscow Show trials]] of 1938.

The novel vividly describes the horror of the Stalinist purges, and served as an inspiration for [[George Orwell]]'s [[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]. Orwell also wrote an essay on the novel, titled ''Arthur Koestler''.<ref>http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part21.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T12:46:02Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T12:38:39Z

Maquissar: /* Canada embarrasses itself at Olympics */

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T00:52:12Z

Maquissar:

'''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:36, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Hello. First off I'm new to Conservapedia and mainly I joined so I could fix small errors in articles, such as spelling mistakes etc. That being said, I am interested in further explanation of how having socialist policies and legalizing gay marriages is linked to Canada performing below (some) expectations at the Olympics. Also, what is the law liberals should pass to stop something? The Liberal party itself cannot pass any laws as the Conservative party is in power.Hhollis 10:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Liberals hate the free market and loathe the competitive spirit. The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence. As to promoting the homosexual agenda with gay marriage, and then in schools, it sends many people down a road of failure rather than into traditional marriage that is so successful in producing excellence, including excellent athletes.

The reference to liberals passing a law to fix this defect was satirical.--Andy Schlafly 10:55, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I understood the argument, it may be because of my limited knowledge of the English language. To clarify: is your hypothesis only limited to the upbringing of an athlete (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have had a non-liberal upbringing), do they extend to the politics and morals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes have liberal values in the political and moral sphere) or, finally, are you talking about countries and not individuals (i.e. , very few exceptional athletes come from countries and cultures which promote liberal or socialistic values)? --Maquissar 11:31, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Maquissar, it's not that complicated. The percentage of excellent athletes who are in traditional relationships or marriages is very high. The percentage of those misled by the homosexual agenda who then break athletic records is very low. Impose the latter on a country and expect to produce athletes who are not as competitive with other nations that don't impose the misguided value system.--Andy Schlafly 11:51, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I would be very interested to see where you are getting these percentages Mr. Schlafly. Do you have a source for that information? As for your original argument that somehow socialism and gay marriage impacts an athletes performance, well that's just silly. It seems to me that you try to link two completely unrelated things to somehow push your beliefs about gay marriage and socialism. Yes, Canada has many social programs. Yes, many Canadian support gay marriage. How that affects Canadian athletes is beyond me. It sounds like you're grasping at straws.--Cjohnston 12:13, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks for the answer. I do not have any comments on the subject of exceptional homosexual athletes, as I haven't done any extensive research on the subject. But about liberal values, socialism, and sports, I don't agree. It seems to me that there are and there have been many exceptional athletes who did not have conservative values in either morals or politics, and also many exceptional athletes who came from socialistic or even communist countries. Some examples:

Non-conservative moral values:

Exceptional athletes who were libertines, or who divorced more than twice: ---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer) ---Tiger WOODS (golf) ---Cassius CLAY (boxing) ---George BEST (soccer) ---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who committed very serious crimes like rape, kidnapping, robbery, or murder: ---O.J. SIMPSON (football) ---Mike TYSON (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who were drug users: ---Diego Armando MARADONA (soccer) ---Marco PANTANI (cyclism) ---Ray Sugar LEONARD (boxing) ---Joe LOUIS (boxing)

Exceptional athletes who are agnostic or atheist: ---Lance ARMSTRONG (cycling)

Socialist or communist countries successful in sports:

---The SOVIET UNION won the 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1988 Summer Olympics, and came second almost every other time it partecipated. It produced several outstanding athletes in all different disciplines.

---CUBA always fared very successfully at Olympic games in spite of its small size.

---EAST GERMANY, when it existed, fared very successfully at Olympic games.

---ROMANIA produced many fine athletes in the time it was still part of the Eastern bloc, and came second in the 1984 Olympics, the only Communist country that took part to those games.

---BRAZIL is a socialist country, yet it still produces many of the world's greatest soccer players.

This is just a list which didn't take too much time to research, and I am sure that other names could be added to it. Also, I am not very familiar with American sports, so my list takes into account only American athletes whose fame is large enough to have spread to Italy. My point is, there doesn't seem to me that there is a clear correlation between liberal moral values, liberal political values, socialism, and failure in sports. --Maquissar 13:10, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Okay, now this argument that socialism breeds a lack of competitive spirit and sub-par athletes is really just silly. Let's look at the data ... Since we started off talking about the Winter Olympics, the all-time medals leader is Norway with 290 medals (103 of which were gold) and Norway has a pretty vibrant national welfare system. Second place is the United States with 237 medals (84 Gold) and third all-time is the Soviet Union with 217 medals (87 of which were gold). So, the Soviet Union won just twenty fewer medals and three more gold medals despite the fact that they competed in only 9 Winter Olympic Games and the United States competed in 21 Winter Games.[1].

If one looks at the Summer Games, in the eight games in which the United States and Soviet Union both competed, the United States trailed in the medal count six times to the Soviets.[2] The U.S. also trailed the post-Soviet "Unified Team" in 1992 in both the Summer and Winter Games.[3][4] Furthermore, if one weights the all-time medal counts for the Soviet Union and the United States[5] to account for the fact that the Soviets only participated in 9 Summer Games to the United States's 25, the Soviets have a clear margin of victory in both the total medal count and the gold medal count. Finally, in 2008, the U.S. trailed in the gold medals category (though, admittedly, not in the total medal count) to China -- again a country with some socialist tendencies.[6]

So maybe it's time to put this one to bed. Just because you're a "socialist" doesn't mean you can't run fast or jump high.--Rubashov 13:30, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Folks, you take liberal denial to, shall we say, Olympic heights. Your misuse of statistics fails to match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause. First open your mind and admit that the cause-and-effect is quite possible. I doubt you can get to the starting gate.--Andy Schlafly 13:41, 24 February 2010 (EST)

How have they misused statistics? And also, if we look at medals per capita here, we see that the leading nations are all fairly socialist countries. CharlieT 13:45, 24 February 2010 (EST)

I admit that cause-and-effect is quite possible. Actually, I BELIEVE in cause-and-effect. However, looking at the effects (e.g., the results in sport competitions of socialists and liberals) I don't find your hypothesis ("Liberalism and socialism fail - or are vastly inferior than conservativism - to create exceptional athletes") to be true. I am willing to admit that the mistake could be in my use of logic. Could you please explain how these statistics were misused? And what do you mean by "match the time period of effect to the time period of the cause"? --Maquissar 13:48, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Andy, you're right; I'm having trouble getting to the starting gate since, on its face, your assertion that a country that embraces socialism breeds poor-quality athletes seems rather obtuse. I disagree that I misused the statistics, but if you would like to point out specifically how I did so or offer a better analysis of them, I welcome your interpretation of the data. That's why I provided links to all of the raw data I used -- so have at it. Furthermore, your response was vague and I'm not sure what you mean by matching the time period of the cause with its effects in this particular instance. But, as I wait for you to clear up what you mean, I'll take a crack at what I THINK you mean.

Though there have certainly been outliers, I think we can all agree that most Olympians are rather young, especially in sports requiring more vigorous activity. These sports, moreover, would seem to be more prone to the dilution of competitive spirit you have described. Since the first Olympics in which the Soviet Union competed was in 1952 and the Bolshevik Revolution was in 1917, any athlete under the age of 35 would have been born and raised under Soviet Socialism. They would have been indoctrinated with Soviet ideals in their schools (which you claim above is a key cause of the less-competitive effect). And the Soviet Union had, relatively early on, one of the most liberal divorce systems in the world. So one could infer that Soviet athletes were raised in a system that was less tied to notions of "traditional marriage" (another of your key causes above). Can we all agree that the Soviet Union was the MOST socialist society that we have yet seen? If so, and given the above points, one would expect to see the Soviet Union do markedly poorer in Olympic competition than the freer-market, traditional-marriage United States. Yet, the Soviets performed better in six of the eight Olympics in which both countries competed and performed better on the whole over the course of the 36 years in which the Soviet Union took part in the Olympic Games. Similarly, as time went on, one would expect the Soviet Union to decline in relation to the United States in competition as a greater percentage of the athletes were born under socialism. And, yet, Soviet performance was remarkably consistent over time. And, considering that the United States outperformed the Soviets in their first meeting in 1952 but then trailed the Soviets in 1956, the Soviet athletes actually IMPROVED as their ranks were filled with socialist-born athletes.

So, the question remains, what exactly is the "time frame" for this particular cause and effect? Given the number of articles on the news page that compare Obama to Stalin and the current liberal government to Soviet Socialism after only one year in power, one could argue that the effects of socialist indoctrination occur quickly indeed. Or, take the Canadian case: The Canadian government legalized homosexual marriage in 2005. And, I'll be generous and spot you an additional 20 years in which the homosexual citizens and interest groups gained enough ground to sway the government. That gives us a total of 25 years, which is still less than the 40 years between the Bolshevik Revolution and the first time the Soviet Union outperformed the United States in the Summer Games. Given that the Soviet Union is surely more socialist and has more indoctrination power at its disposal than Canada, the Soviet athletes in 1956 should have been much more steeped in the socialist agenda than Canada in 2010.

Well Mr. Schlafly, I have attempted to answer your criticism (as far as I understand it) and I have compared the United States's Olympic performance to that of the Soviet Union, both when they competed against each other and over the entire course of their participation in the Olympic Games. I don't know what other time frame of cause and effect is available. Again, I encourage you to show statistical evidence to refute my own and have provided the data necessary to do so. But, until you provide some evidence to the contrary, I remain skeptical that the Canadian loss to the U.S. in hockey can be explained by socialism or homosexuality. You seem to be acting just as the liberal government in Australia did in enacting gun control. To quote yourself, above: "The liberal newspapers jumped on a statistically insignificant tragedy to demand sweeping gun control for law-abiding citizens." Are you sure that you are not jumping on a statistically insignificant event (Canada's loss to the United States in ONE hockey game or their general failure to live up to medal predictions in ONE Olympic Games) to demonize a particular country's governmental system or a particular ideology. Sounds a bit like Liberal Deceit to me. Yours, with an open mind, --Rubashov 15:00, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Rubashov, if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. Indeed, all of your analysis is suspect based on your refusal from the get-go to allow the possibility of what you then claim to analyze. The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country that forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics. Any sports fan knows that and I find it disingenuous for you to omit it. Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.

I will respond to others willing to engage in open-minded discussion of this.--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 24 February 2010 (EST)
While all were born in Canada, only two are living in Canada right now, everybody else plays for a US team. The coach is the coach of the Red Wings. While an effect might be claimed, I think if might be better to wait and see for the medal round. Rcgallup 16:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Wow, a dismissal and a deflection all in one. You’re right, Andy, that I remain unconvinced that Socialism and non-traditional marriage in a society leads to sub-par athletes. The reason? I have brought to bear thirty-six years of evidence of Soviet excellence in the Olympic Games (the Olympics were your field of choice, by the way) and you have a single hockey game that Canadians lost to the United States. I have no problem with cause and effect; I’m a historian so cause and effect is kind of what I do. I do have a problem with unsubstantiated cause and effect; it is intellectually lazy. It is not my job to prove YOUR hypothesis. Since you are a lawyer by training, let’s put it this way: the burden of proof is yours. I have brought a wealth of evidence to court and you have brought nothing, who do you think the judge or the jury will believe? So, until you show me how my analysis of the data was flawed and offer counter evidence to my interpretation, I remain unconvinced.

It is possible that you could prove your point better than I could prove mine, but I think it is unlikely. Arguing that the Canadians losing to the United States in a hockey game is proof that somehow the zeitgeist of Canada is lacking to the United States is a bit like saying that when the Suns beat the Thunder in NBA basketball last night it was proof that Phoenix is a better city than Oklahoma City. The only problem is: What if Oklahoma City wins the next time?

But, since you have deflected our discussion, let’s get back to the points you just made and then maybe later you’ll answer my original analysis:

1) “The Soviet Union, by the way, was a COMMUNIST country.... Your analogy has no application to a free society like Canada's.”

So, the point here is that the Soviet Union was not socialist BECAUSE it was communist? Or too socialist to be socialist? I really don’t think you believe that. I don’t think you believe that because your encyclopedia tells me that the Soviet Union was socialist and that communism is a form of socialism: “[The Soviet Union] was the most powerful established socialist states in history;” “In Communism (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality;” “First there is Marxian Socialism or Leninism as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by Stalin (and his successors);” and “Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the government owns the means of production.”

Communism is a form of socialism, though certainly not all socialists are communists. If you don’t understand that communism is a form of socialism (and I think you do), you need to go back to Princeton and ask for your money back. Nonetheless, your argument is that socialism causes a lack of competitive spirit in athletes and causes them to fail in international competition. Thus if a socialist country (even an EXTREME socialist one) bests or does as well as a free market country (especially over an extended period of time) in international competition, then your argument has been proven false. Just as if you said “all pies are yummy” and then discovered that you did not like rhubarb pie, you would have to revise or discard your original assertion.

p.s. If the Soviet Union really wasn’t socialist, then we really should should stop comparing Obama’s “socialism” to Stalinism.

2) “... [The Soviet Union] forcibly handpicked and developed athletes specifically to excel in the Olympics.”

Are you saying that the success of Soviet athletes in international competition is attributable to being chosen and trained by the state? That government intervention in the lives of its citizens, deciding who will be trained to excel to the detriment of other potential athletes produced better athletic results that a free market system based on the competition of all athletes to decide who was the most able competitor? You’re saying that socialism works better than a free market system? If you really believe that (and I don’t think you do), I await your vocal support of the public healthcare option.

3) “...a free society like Canada's.”

Wait, you just said above that Canada was not a free society but a socialist one. As you put it: “The sine qua non of socialism is control, control, control. It's no surprise that such a system produces less than excellence.” The crux of your argument was that the U.S. outperformed Canada because Canada is socialist and because it “loathe[s] the free market.” So is Canada socialist or isn’t it?

Well, Andy, this has been an interesting and dare I say fun discussion. You always ask for logic and I think I have given it to you in spades. I await with excitement your response and hope, at some point, that you will provide evidence of your original assertion rather than deflection. Yours, still with an open mind,--Rubashov 17:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Rubashov, as I said, it's a fool's errand to argue with someone who lacks an open mind. When you admit that it is possible that socialism and the homosexual agenda have a negative affect on a free nation's success at the Olympics, then let's discuss. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time replying to a closed mind.

Maquissar, you seem willing to discuss the hypothesis with an open mind, and the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing different countries having different climates and interests in sports to each other. That's not nearly as valuable as comparing the same country to itself under different policies of that same country. Indeed, some have already blamed Canada's policy of "own the podium" for its failures. No one seems closed-minded about that, although certainly some may disagree. Why the closed-mindedness by others about negative effects from socialism and the homosexual agenda?--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 24 February 2010 (EST)

* This is 2010! I can hardly believe my eyes that there are actually people arguing in favor of Communism, or excusing it. Obviously the users doing so are way too young to have actually lived under their regimes, and very ignorant about "Reeducation Camps" where family members were in many cases held to force athletes to comply, or punish those who the authorities felt didn't try hard enough. The Chinese still are doing it. Check Amnesty International, hardly a conservative organization. Trolls be gone! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:15, 24 February 2010 (EST)

With all respect, Rubashov was not arguing in favour of Communism, but pointing out the lack of a link between socialism/gay marriage and poor athletic performance which Mr. Schlafly failed to properly cite. I believe the bending of information to suit your own ideals is something of a liberal trait. You'll likely ban me now too, but the truth is more important.

Andy, first of all, I begin by saying that I am not discussing the correlation between endorsement of gay marriage and sports, because I don't have any data to work on, and anything I say would be pure speculation. For the sake of this argument, I will restrain my reasoning to socialism. You say that a country should be compared to itself under different policies, and not to other countries; I agree, as tradition, geography, and racial characteristics also play a heavy role in sports performance. No matter their political or social values, for instance, I doubt Tahitians will ever win a medal in winter sports. Also, I understand that this is not mathematics, and that a certain degree of randomness may induce fluctuations. England, regardless of political or social changes, may gloriously win the soccer World cup one year, and lose it ignominiously four years later.

Yet, if socialism DOES play a significant negative role in athletic performance, it should be expected that countries will, ON AVERAGE, normally fare worse during socialism. Of course, changes will not be immediately apparent; a country which has a socialist revolution in 2011 will not have a decreased athletic performance overnight, and a socialist country which changes to another type of government will not suddenly become better. If my reasoning is wrong, please do correct me.

Now, let's analyze the available data, and let's see if this is indeed the case. Please know that I do not already know the answer: I am looking at data as we speak, and posting it "raw". To each of us the duty of drawing his own conclusions.

Please also keep in mind that the 1980 Olympic games were in Moscow, and the 1984 Olympic games were in Los Angeles. The US and 64 other countries boycotted the Moscow games, and the Eastern bloc (except Romania) boycotted the Los Angeles games.

I'll not consider the 1948 Olympic Games, as some countries did not partecipate, and most countries were still recovering from the damages of a World War. If this exclusion is wrong, please point it out.

ROMANIA.

Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 13 medals (4 gold)
1960: 10 medals (3 gold)
1964: 12 medals (2 gold)
1968: 15 medals (4 gold)
1972: 16 medals (3 gold)
1976: 27 medals (4 gold)
1980: 25 medals (6 gold)
1984: 53 medals (20 gold)
1988: 24 medals (7 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 18 medals (4 gold)
1996: 20 medals (4 gold)
2000: 26 medals (11 gold)
2004: 19 medals (8 gold)
2008: 8 medals (4 gold)

POLAND.

Communist period (1945-1989)
1952: 4 medals (1 gold)
1956: 9 medals (1 gold)
1960: 21 medals (4 gold)
1964: 23 medals (7 gold)
1968: 18 medals (5 gold)
1972: 21 medals (7 gold)
1976: 26 medals (7 gold)
1980: 32 medals (3 gold)
1984: absent
1988: 16 medals (2 gold)
Free-market period (1989-present)
1992: 19 medals (3 gold)
1996: 17 medals (7 gold)
2000: 14 medals (6 gold)
2004: 10 medals (3 gold)
2008: 10 medals (3 gold)

I will not do this for every nation, as this would take too much space. Those of you who are interested in the debate, find some records and analyze the available data, and then draw your own conclusions. For the sake of statistics, however, let's take a democracy and not a communist dictatorship.

UNITED KINGDOM

Conservatives in Power (1951-1964)
1952: 11 medals (1 gold)
1956: 24 medals (6 gold)
1960: 12 medals (2 gold)
Labour in Power (1964-1970)
1964: 18 medals (4 gold)
1968: 13 medals (5 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1970-1974)
1972: 18 medals (4 gold)
Labour in Power (1974-1979)
1976: 13 medals (3 gold)
Conservatives in Power (1979-1997)
1980: 21 medals (5 gold)
1984: 37 medals (5 gold)
1988: 24 medals (5 gold)
1992: 20 medals (5 gold)
1996: 15 medals (1 gold)
Labour in Power (1997-present)
2000: 28 medals (11 gold)
2004: 30 medals (9 gold)
2008: 47 medals (19 gold)

Take a look as many countries as you like, keep into consideration the fact that changes shouldn't be evident immediately, but the preeminence of a political and social ideology should take some time to show its fruits, and decide for yourselves: does socialism have an effect on athletic performance? --Maquissar 19:03, 24 February 2010 (EST)

:TK raises a critical point which seems to have gone overlooked. Totalitarian regimes can and will employ the most brutal of tactics to "motivate" their subjects; this can, to some extent, mask the weakness of their system. This principle holds true whether discussing economics or athletics; fear is a powerful motivator. However, ultimately, it is a self-destructive one, and "successful" systems built on fear are doomed to topple. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 24 February 2010 (EST)

::That may be a valid point: I heard that under Fascism in Italy one of the players who scored a decisive goal in the final of a World Cup admitted that he was afraid of missing, cause he would have been beaten and forced to drink castor oil. I have no source for this though, it's hearsay.
Anyway, we are talking about socialism here. The debate originated from a discussion about Canada, not the Soviet Union. Socialism does not equal communism, nor does it equal totalitarianism: European states, for instance, often adopt socialist policies, and left-wing governments do go to power, but totalitarianism is not a factor in the equation.
It would be interesting to see which results we would get if we excluded Soviet bloc countries from this debate, and just focused on different "left-wing" and "right-wing" periods of the history of democratic countries. I am not convinced that we would find significant statistical differences, and "brutal tactics" would be completely out of the equation. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 19:52, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2010-02-25T00:38:00Z

Maquissar: /* Other */

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

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

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]

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

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Should citations from books be discouraged on CP?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Debate: Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
#[[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance

2010-02-25T00:36:20Z

Maquissar: Created page with ''''As suggested, I created a debate page about this subject. The debate can be continued here. This is what has been said so far.''' --~~~~ Hello. First off I'm new to Conservap...'

Talk:Fascism

2010-02-24T02:35:18Z

Maquissar:

"They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries." This is a debateable poimnt. In most Facist countries conservative forces rallied to a militant conservatism when they were under threat. The proclaimed ideals of Fascism; patriotism, loyalty, family, are those proclaimed by conservatives. The militancy was a product of circumstance [[user:stevendavy]]

Is anybody paying attention to this article? A liberal recently posted information which labels Conservapedia as fascist! We need to keep an eye on articles such as this. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Using "far-right" and "far-left" in reference to "state" in the first paragraph is not needed. And "far-left" makes no sense, since in the second paragraph Fascism is called the opposite of Communism, which is as far-left as you can get.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It should be noted that Nazism is different from Fascism. This article treats both terms as if they're synonymous. - [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]]

Since when was the swastika used for "mind control"? Also Mussolini hated Nazism, and Hitler made it clear that Nazism was not fascism. Therefore discussion of Nazism belongs in a seperate article, not one on fascism. Also most government types "impose social and economic regimentation". This isn't unique to fascism, or any ideology. America's Bill of Rights is a form of social regimentation. Also, this article treats fascism as just a type of government without fully explaining the ideology itself. This article talks more of Nazism and Communism than it does fascism. - [[User:mckennesaw|mckennesaw]]

If taken as stated, facism is only different from structure oriented conservatism (citation: They did not wish to preserve the existing order), but not from what could also be claimed of value oriented conservatism (They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism.) -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:"structure oriented conservatism"? Nice try. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to define the "left" as anything other than "for change". Hitler was for change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The last sentence (The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries) is not a well-supported or proven fact. Too close to an impression or an opinion. It should be deleted. -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:Direct quote from Prof. Schlesinger. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Which European nations have significant Fascist influence? There are none which have fascist parties or fascist ideologies that are legal or bona fide.

There should definitely be a section on this page that explains some of fascism's key characteristics like collectivism, nationalism and the like. [[User:Conservawesome|Conservawesome]] 12:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Political spectrum==

Cut from article:

:Though fascism is generally considered to be an ideology of the extreme right, it has important differences from conventional [[conservatism]]: for example, fascists favor state-sponsored corporatism over the free market (though they are vehemently opposed to socialism). Fascists and conservatives have co-operated in many countries, but conservatives have clamped down on fascist movements in others (witness, for example, the fate of the Iron Guard in Romania). Mussolini himself started out on the political Left.

Calling fascism '''and''' conservatism "right-wing" adds nothing to the article. We need better definitinos of all three terms, before we can do anything like that.

We also need to be sure whether Fascism includes Nazism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the addition how nazism puts an emphasis on race is very good. The etymology of the word, as defined in the mainspace however, I'm not certain is accurate. The term "faces", I've always understood to refer to the weapon a "fascist" weilded, and it was a symbol of "defence", or "defence of the (Roman Empire) realm". Hence a "fascist" is literally a "defender", or "defender of the realm". The term also is very much more akin or synonomous with French "Chauvinism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

See also [[Fascism_Talk]]{{unsigned}}
:This does not belong in a mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the sentence which overtly attempted to create a tenuous connection with socialism. The truth is, most of the central tenets of fascism (including militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-communism) as well as the racism, homophobia, and antisemitism inherent in the related ideology of Nazism are more traditionally linked with the right. I also changed the bizarre statement that fascism as an ideology was discredited because of the military defeat of the axis powers. It may have declined as a movement as a result of the defeat of the axis as well as widespread opposition to fascism during and after the war, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a reasonable ideology (of course to realize that it's not, all you have to do is read about it). I'd actually like to change that entire paragraph. It's a horribly written hodge-podge of completely unrelated statements, and it ends with inaccurate and pseudo-racist nonsense (which I removed). Arthur Schlesinger's quote at the end is an obvious attempt to build upon the earlier connection between socialism and fascism, and to distance it from conservatives. Of course, the quote (aside from being derived from a misunderstanding of the different manifestations and definitions of the term conservative) makes an important point and should be included in the article, so I did not remove it. It desperately needs some context and analysis however, which I don't feel suited to do, particularly since I don't actually agree with the likely intentions of whoever put up the quote. ~~

:The first edit I made was immediately removed, although my edit was completely even-handed and a much better representation of scholarly opinion. Pierre Laval was hardly a fascist, and Quisling was hardly a socialist. Hayek's comment is at best controversial, and even fascists themselves dispute the connection. It is hardly significant that a young politically engaged person who is dissatisfied with the current order who jump from one radical revolutionary ideology to another completely different one. My edit preserved the fact that many fascists began their lives as socialists, while removing the unstated implication that fascism is a movement of the left, which MOST SERIOUS SCHOLARS know acknowledge is incorrect. I'm going to try editing again with a compromise, but I suspect it will be reverted again. ~~
::Swearing again will result in a block. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Edit proposal ==

As this is a controversial subject, I thought I'd post my edit proposal on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Claims have been made that not all fascisms were against Christianity, citing Francisco Franco's Fascism as an example. A change to the page has been made, but it has been reverted without answering the matter in depth. A good way to address that issue and at the same time deny it would be making this change:

"Although some Fascist regimes in the past, such as Francoism, have claimed to embrace religion, they have done so only for a matter of political expediency. Every form of totalitarianism is in fact, by its own nature, anti-religious. Totalitarian regimes demand, in fact, the complete submission and devotion of the citizen to the state, and any religion present in the state means a divided allegiance in the believers. In addition, the moral values promoted by religions are clearly at odds with most of the methods employed by totalitarian states. Religion and totalitarianism are therefore to be considered completely incompatible."

What do you think of it?
--[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]]

#Your proposal would meet with better acceptance if you signed it. Try using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your post; the website will add your signature automatically, along with a timestamp.
#I don't know who reverted such a change in the past.
#It sounds like a good addition, and I hope you can provide reference for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Sorry, I signed now. What sort of reference are you talking about? There are some interesting studies by certain Yale professors about the relationship between religion and totalitarianism, I could find a quote if needed. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 21:33, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Fascism

2010-02-24T02:34:43Z

Maquissar: Removed date, as it was not exact.

"They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries." This is a debateable poimnt. In most Facist countries conservative forces rallied to a militant conservatism when they were under threat. The proclaimed ideals of Fascism; patriotism, loyalty, family, are those proclaimed by conservatives. The militancy was a product of circumstance [[user:stevendavy]]

Is anybody paying attention to this article? A liberal recently posted information which labels Conservapedia as fascist! We need to keep an eye on articles such as this. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Using "far-right" and "far-left" in reference to "state" in the first paragraph is not needed. And "far-left" makes no sense, since in the second paragraph Fascism is called the opposite of Communism, which is as far-left as you can get.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It should be noted that Nazism is different from Fascism. This article treats both terms as if they're synonymous. - [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]]

Since when was the swastika used for "mind control"? Also Mussolini hated Nazism, and Hitler made it clear that Nazism was not fascism. Therefore discussion of Nazism belongs in a seperate article, not one on fascism. Also most government types "impose social and economic regimentation". This isn't unique to fascism, or any ideology. America's Bill of Rights is a form of social regimentation. Also, this article treats fascism as just a type of government without fully explaining the ideology itself. This article talks more of Nazism and Communism than it does fascism. - [[User:mckennesaw|mckennesaw]]

If taken as stated, facism is only different from structure oriented conservatism (citation: They did not wish to preserve the existing order), but not from what could also be claimed of value oriented conservatism (They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism.) -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:"structure oriented conservatism"? Nice try. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to define the "left" as anything other than "for change". Hitler was for change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The last sentence (The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries) is not a well-supported or proven fact. Too close to an impression or an opinion. It should be deleted. -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:Direct quote from Prof. Schlesinger. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Which European nations have significant Fascist influence? There are none which have fascist parties or fascist ideologies that are legal or bona fide.

There should definitely be a section on this page that explains some of fascism's key characteristics like collectivism, nationalism and the like. [[User:Conservawesome|Conservawesome]] 12:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Political spectrum==

Cut from article:

:Though fascism is generally considered to be an ideology of the extreme right, it has important differences from conventional [[conservatism]]: for example, fascists favor state-sponsored corporatism over the free market (though they are vehemently opposed to socialism). Fascists and conservatives have co-operated in many countries, but conservatives have clamped down on fascist movements in others (witness, for example, the fate of the Iron Guard in Romania). Mussolini himself started out on the political Left.

Calling fascism '''and''' conservatism "right-wing" adds nothing to the article. We need better definitinos of all three terms, before we can do anything like that.

We also need to be sure whether Fascism includes Nazism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the addition how nazism puts an emphasis on race is very good. The etymology of the word, as defined in the mainspace however, I'm not certain is accurate. The term "faces", I've always understood to refer to the weapon a "fascist" weilded, and it was a symbol of "defence", or "defence of the (Roman Empire) realm". Hence a "fascist" is literally a "defender", or "defender of the realm". The term also is very much more akin or synonomous with French "Chauvinism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

See also [[Fascism_Talk]]{{unsigned}}
:This does not belong in a mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the sentence which overtly attempted to create a tenuous connection with socialism. The truth is, most of the central tenets of fascism (including militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-communism) as well as the racism, homophobia, and antisemitism inherent in the related ideology of Nazism are more traditionally linked with the right. I also changed the bizarre statement that fascism as an ideology was discredited because of the military defeat of the axis powers. It may have declined as a movement as a result of the defeat of the axis as well as widespread opposition to fascism during and after the war, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a reasonable ideology (of course to realize that it's not, all you have to do is read about it). I'd actually like to change that entire paragraph. It's a horribly written hodge-podge of completely unrelated statements, and it ends with inaccurate and pseudo-racist nonsense (which I removed). Arthur Schlesinger's quote at the end is an obvious attempt to build upon the earlier connection between socialism and fascism, and to distance it from conservatives. Of course, the quote (aside from being derived from a misunderstanding of the different manifestations and definitions of the term conservative) makes an important point and should be included in the article, so I did not remove it. It desperately needs some context and analysis however, which I don't feel suited to do, particularly since I don't actually agree with the likely intentions of whoever put up the quote. ~~

:The first edit I made was immediately removed, although my edit was completely even-handed and a much better representation of scholarly opinion. Pierre Laval was hardly a fascist, and Quisling was hardly a socialist. Hayek's comment is at best controversial, and even fascists themselves dispute the connection. It is hardly significant that a young politically engaged person who is dissatisfied with the current order who jump from one radical revolutionary ideology to another completely different one. My edit preserved the fact that many fascists began their lives as socialists, while removing the unstated implication that fascism is a movement of the left, which MOST SERIOUS SCHOLARS know acknowledge is incorrect. I'm going to try editing again with a compromise, but I suspect it will be reverted again. ~~
::Swearing again will result in a block. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Edit proposal ==

As this is a controversial subject, I thought I'd post my edit proposal on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Claims have been made that not all fascisms were against Christianity, citing Francisco Franco's Fascism as an example. A change to the page has been made, but it has been reverted without answering the matter in depth. A good way to address that issue and at the same time deny it would be making this change:

"Although some Fascist regimes in the past, such as Francoism, have claimed to embrace religion, they have done so only for a matter of political expediency. Every form of totalitarianism is in fact, by its own nature, anti-religious. Totalitarian regimes demand, in fact, the complete submission and devotion of the citizen to the state, and any religion present in the state means a divided allegiance in the believers. In addition, the moral values promoted by religions are clearly at odds with most of the methods employed by totalitarian states. Religion and totalitarianism are therefore to be considered completely incompatible." --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]](EST)

What do you think of it?

#Your proposal would meet with better acceptance if you signed it. Try using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your post; the website will add your signature automatically, along with a timestamp.
#I don't know who reverted such a change in the past.
#It sounds like a good addition, and I hope you can provide reference for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Sorry, I signed now. What sort of reference are you talking about? There are some interesting studies by certain Yale professors about the relationship between religion and totalitarianism, I could find a quote if needed. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 21:33, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Fascism

2010-02-24T02:33:56Z

Maquissar:

"They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries." This is a debateable poimnt. In most Facist countries conservative forces rallied to a militant conservatism when they were under threat. The proclaimed ideals of Fascism; patriotism, loyalty, family, are those proclaimed by conservatives. The militancy was a product of circumstance [[user:stevendavy]]

Is anybody paying attention to this article? A liberal recently posted information which labels Conservapedia as fascist! We need to keep an eye on articles such as this. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Using "far-right" and "far-left" in reference to "state" in the first paragraph is not needed. And "far-left" makes no sense, since in the second paragraph Fascism is called the opposite of Communism, which is as far-left as you can get.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It should be noted that Nazism is different from Fascism. This article treats both terms as if they're synonymous. - [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]]

Since when was the swastika used for "mind control"? Also Mussolini hated Nazism, and Hitler made it clear that Nazism was not fascism. Therefore discussion of Nazism belongs in a seperate article, not one on fascism. Also most government types "impose social and economic regimentation". This isn't unique to fascism, or any ideology. America's Bill of Rights is a form of social regimentation. Also, this article treats fascism as just a type of government without fully explaining the ideology itself. This article talks more of Nazism and Communism than it does fascism. - [[User:mckennesaw|mckennesaw]]

If taken as stated, facism is only different from structure oriented conservatism (citation: They did not wish to preserve the existing order), but not from what could also be claimed of value oriented conservatism (They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism.) -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:"structure oriented conservatism"? Nice try. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to define the "left" as anything other than "for change". Hitler was for change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The last sentence (The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries) is not a well-supported or proven fact. Too close to an impression or an opinion. It should be deleted. -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:Direct quote from Prof. Schlesinger. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Which European nations have significant Fascist influence? There are none which have fascist parties or fascist ideologies that are legal or bona fide.

There should definitely be a section on this page that explains some of fascism's key characteristics like collectivism, nationalism and the like. [[User:Conservawesome|Conservawesome]] 12:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Political spectrum==

Cut from article:

:Though fascism is generally considered to be an ideology of the extreme right, it has important differences from conventional [[conservatism]]: for example, fascists favor state-sponsored corporatism over the free market (though they are vehemently opposed to socialism). Fascists and conservatives have co-operated in many countries, but conservatives have clamped down on fascist movements in others (witness, for example, the fate of the Iron Guard in Romania). Mussolini himself started out on the political Left.

Calling fascism '''and''' conservatism "right-wing" adds nothing to the article. We need better definitinos of all three terms, before we can do anything like that.

We also need to be sure whether Fascism includes Nazism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the addition how nazism puts an emphasis on race is very good. The etymology of the word, as defined in the mainspace however, I'm not certain is accurate. The term "faces", I've always understood to refer to the weapon a "fascist" weilded, and it was a symbol of "defence", or "defence of the (Roman Empire) realm". Hence a "fascist" is literally a "defender", or "defender of the realm". The term also is very much more akin or synonomous with French "Chauvinism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

See also [[Fascism_Talk]]{{unsigned}}
:This does not belong in a mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the sentence which overtly attempted to create a tenuous connection with socialism. The truth is, most of the central tenets of fascism (including militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-communism) as well as the racism, homophobia, and antisemitism inherent in the related ideology of Nazism are more traditionally linked with the right. I also changed the bizarre statement that fascism as an ideology was discredited because of the military defeat of the axis powers. It may have declined as a movement as a result of the defeat of the axis as well as widespread opposition to fascism during and after the war, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a reasonable ideology (of course to realize that it's not, all you have to do is read about it). I'd actually like to change that entire paragraph. It's a horribly written hodge-podge of completely unrelated statements, and it ends with inaccurate and pseudo-racist nonsense (which I removed). Arthur Schlesinger's quote at the end is an obvious attempt to build upon the earlier connection between socialism and fascism, and to distance it from conservatives. Of course, the quote (aside from being derived from a misunderstanding of the different manifestations and definitions of the term conservative) makes an important point and should be included in the article, so I did not remove it. It desperately needs some context and analysis however, which I don't feel suited to do, particularly since I don't actually agree with the likely intentions of whoever put up the quote. ~~

:The first edit I made was immediately removed, although my edit was completely even-handed and a much better representation of scholarly opinion. Pierre Laval was hardly a fascist, and Quisling was hardly a socialist. Hayek's comment is at best controversial, and even fascists themselves dispute the connection. It is hardly significant that a young politically engaged person who is dissatisfied with the current order who jump from one radical revolutionary ideology to another completely different one. My edit preserved the fact that many fascists began their lives as socialists, while removing the unstated implication that fascism is a movement of the left, which MOST SERIOUS SCHOLARS know acknowledge is incorrect. I'm going to try editing again with a compromise, but I suspect it will be reverted again. ~~
::Swearing again will result in a block. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Edit proposal ==

As this is a controversial subject, I thought I'd post my edit proposal on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Claims have been made that not all fascisms were against Christianity, citing Francisco Franco's Fascism as an example. A change to the page has been made, but it has been reverted without answering the matter in depth. A good way to address that issue and at the same time deny it would be making this change:

"Although some Fascist regimes in the past, such as Francoism, have claimed to embrace religion, they have done so only for a matter of political expediency. Every form of totalitarianism is in fact, by its own nature, anti-religious. Totalitarian regimes demand, in fact, the complete submission and devotion of the citizen to the state, and any religion present in the state means a divided allegiance in the believers. In addition, the moral values promoted by religions are clearly at odds with most of the methods employed by totalitarian states. Religion and totalitarianism are therefore to be considered completely incompatible." --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 21:33, 23 February 2010 (EST)

What do you think of it?

#Your proposal would meet with better acceptance if you signed it. Try using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your post; the website will add your signature automatically, along with a timestamp.
#I don't know who reverted such a change in the past.
#It sounds like a good addition, and I hope you can provide reference for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Sorry, I signed now. What sort of reference are you talking about? There are some interesting studies by certain Yale professors about the relationship between religion and totalitarianism, I could find a quote if needed. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 21:33, 23 February 2010 (EST)

The Chaos (poem)

2010-02-24T02:03:27Z

Maquissar: Created page with ''''The Chaos''' is a poem by the Dutch teacher Gerard Nolst Trenité, also known as Charivarius. The poem, which first appeared in 1920, illustrates the difficulty of learning En...'

'''The Chaos''' is a poem by the Dutch teacher Gerard Nolst Trenité, also known as Charivarius. The poem, which first appeared in 1920, illustrates the difficulty of learning English by showing many examples of irregular pronounciation.

The full text of the poem can be found online on http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/caos.php .

Talk:Oskar Schindler

2010-02-23T22:19:59Z

Maquissar:

Be careful not to plagiarize. Better to quote verbatim and give credit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:09, 23 February 2010 (EST)

This is the re-elaboration of the knowledge through a couple of books, a DVD, and a few websites about Schindler, after my interest in him was sparked when I watched Spielberg's movie. It is a very basic summary of what I retained, but if you think something should be changed, feel free to make the necessary corrections. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 17:19, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Oskar Schindler

2010-02-23T21:57:55Z

Maquissar: Added reference.

Oskar Schindler (28 April 1908 – 9 October 1974) was a German businessman who saved the lives of almost 1,200 jewish workers during the [[Nazi]] [[Holocaust]]. His life and actions inspired the novel ''Schindler's Ark'' and the movie ''[[Schindler's List]]''.

== Brief Biographical Notes ==
A [[Roman Catholic]], Schindler started his career as a salesman. In 1928 he married Emilie Pelzl; the marriage however quickly deteriorated. A hard drinker and a womanizer, Oskar Schindler had nonetheless a very humane nature, as his wife writes in her memoirs: "''In spite of his flaws, Oscar had a big heart and was always ready to help whoever was in need. He was affable, kind, extremely generous and charitable, but at the same time, not mature at all. He constantly lied and deceived me, and later returned feeling sorry, like a boy caught in mischief, asking to be forgiven one more time - and then we would start all over again ...''"<ref>Emilie Schindler, ''Where Light and Shadow Meet: A Memoir'', W.W. Norton, 1997.</ref>

== The second World War ==
In 1939 Schindler joined the Nazi Party, although for business opportunism rather than ideological reasons. After the [[invasion of Poland]], Schindler gained ownership of an idle enamel factory in [[Kraków]]. Aided by his accountant [[Itzhak Stern]], he reopened the factory. He hired only Jewish workforce; initially motivated by economical reasons - the Jewish workers were the cheapest to obtain - after he witnessed the Holocaust he decided to protect the workers at any cost. An exceptionally charming and persuasive person, he saved the lives of many jews through diplomacy and bribes, using money from his personal fortune.

== After the War ==
When the war ended, Schindler had spent his entire fortune. Unable to prosper in post-war Germany, he received aid from Jewish organizations to survive. In 1948 he moved to Argentina, where he went bankrupt. In 1957 he left his wife; although the two never divorced, they never met again. In 1958 he returned to Germany, where he unsuccessfully tried to start several businesses. In 1974, at the age of 66, he died.

Schindler was buried at the Catholic Franciscans' Cemetery at Mount Sion, in Jerusalem. His selfless actions earned him the title of "Righteous Among the Nations", a honor that the State of [[Israel]] reserves to Gentiles who risked their lives to save the lives of Jews during the Holocaust.

== References ==
<references/>

Oskar Schindler

2010-02-23T21:51:56Z

Maquissar: Created page with 'Oskar Schindler (28 April 1908 – 9 October 1974) was a German businessman who saved the lives of almost 1,200 jewish workers during the Nazi Holocaust. His life and act...'

Talk:Fascism

2010-02-23T15:01:24Z

Maquissar: Proposed change regarding totalitarianism and religion

Talk:Contraception

2010-02-22T03:12:39Z

Maquissar:

==Abstinence==

Abstinence is technically not a contraception method; contraception aims to lower the chances of fecundation through sexual intercourse; abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse. My objection is purely linguistic; saying that abstinence is the most efficient method of contraception is like saying that the best measure of air safety is not flying at all. It is quite true that not flying significantly lowers the chances of dying in an airplane crash, however it is also quite redundant to say it. I suggest changing "the only known method [implied: of contraception] that is 100% effective is abstinence" to "Every sexual intercourse, no matter which method of contraception is used, can possibly lead to pregnancy, as no contraceptive device or technique can claim to be 100% effective."

PS: An unrelated question, sorry to sidetrack: how do I add my name and the hour and date at the end of my comments, without doing it manually? Thanks! [[Maquissar]]

==Mother Mary==
This is a documented case of abstinence being unable to prevent pregnancy. This should be included in the introduction that currently claims that this is not the case.

:Because that was a one time shot, I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned for our modern day. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where in the Bible does it say not to use contraceptives? I'm pretty sure contraceptives had not been invented 2000+ years ago, so I will remove that part. J.Y.L.

==Disease and contraception==

Cut from intro:

:Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that, outside of marriage, contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity . Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful.

What does contraception have to do with minimizing AIDS? Is this a sidelong reference to condoms? Why not be explicit then? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Any contraceptive method, with the exception of the rhythm method and the pill, will reduce the chance of contracting AIDs or other STDs. I agree that that paragraph was just generally wierd and should have been removed, but I think disease prevention is a major positive side effect of almost all forms of contraception and should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>chokes* That's not true. Only condoms and abstinence reduce the transmission of STDs. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Errr, I amend my statement; it turns out there were more types of contraception than I remembered off the top of my head. However, ''any'' barrier method, not just condoms, reduces the chances of STD's. Even coitus interuptus reduces the chance, granted not by a large amount. The point I was trying to make was hidden by my apparent misunderstanding of contraception (hrm... guess I could have done with better sex ed, no?): disease prevention should be mentioned in this article. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==History and social impact==

We should mention something on this. Contraception is the ''key'' development in all thing sexual since it became effective and available. Contraception lead to practical promiscuity and the 'free love' movement, and the rise in acceptability of premarital sex, which in turn helped the acceptability of all public mention and depiction of sex from pornography to racy movie scenes. Contraception regulation resulted in the Griswold case - when the supreme court invented a right to contraception, they set the stage for greater future cases - Griswold was key precident in both Row v Wade and Lawrence V Texas. If Griswold had gone otherwise, it is extremally unlikely the court would later have forced the legalisation of abortion and sodomy. Attempts to prosecute contraceptive education under obscenity laws lead not just to the overturning of Cornstock law, but the weakening of obscenity law in general. Almost every trend in sexual immorality since the 1800's can be traced directly or indirectly to the spreading of contraception. This is why so many states and churches worked so hard to ban it - they could forsee the eventual consequences of making sex safe. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

==History stub==
A few convenient dates for reference.
1855 - First rubber condom. There were earlier condoms, they worked very poorly.
1923 - Comstock struck down, condoms become available in the US at the federal level.
1930 - Anglicans approve the use of contraception, but only within marriage.
1941 - Nazi germany bans the condom, on the grounds that huge numbers of Ayran babies would be needed to populate the world once the war was over.
WW2 - The US issues condoms to it's soldiers. Quite why they would encourage depravity in this way I cannot imagine.
1960 - The Pill recieves FDA approval. It's formulation has been revised many times since.
1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut, state-level restrictions on contraception struck down.
1968 - Humanae Vitae released, in which the Catholic church forbids all forms of artificial contraception without exception.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird. US government loses all authority to prevent the sale of contraception, even to unmarried people, effectively endorsing premarital sex.