Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-27T03:24:54Z

Misterlinx: /* Google Searches are not a way to quantify data */

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, e.g "second-generation atheist", "children of atheist parent", "children of atheistic parents", "offspring of atheists", etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
: I disagree just a little. Google searches can be useful as a rough guide, or a starting point, if you are careful to take into account the sorts of issues that you've listed above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Oh come now, Mr.Rayment. Googling the phrase "first born son" yields 282,200 hits. Googling "first born daughter" yields 37,600 hits. Do you seriously believe this tells you that seven and a half times more often, the first born child is male rather than female?

I repeat, Google hits are utterly meaningless in this context. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: He suggested the control group as atheist children of theists, not of atheists. Atheist children of theists are the appropriate control if you are comparing ''second-generation'' atheists with ''first-generation'' atheists. But it would also be interesting to compare both groups to first-generation Christians and second-generation Christians.
:: And although you could add as separate groups other religions, lumping all theistic religions into one group vs. atheists is making a huge, and invalid, assumption about how similar various theistic religions are. So after atheists, the first group you would compare against would be Christians, and preferably Christians from a reformed background.
:: All proper studies have to grapple with problems of definitions, avoiding hidden biases, etc., and the same applies here, but I don't see any exceptionally difficult problems with a study like this. Religion, at least, is already determined by many other studies. It can be done. Achievement would not be a particular problem, although one thing to be wary of is to avoid a reliance on academic achievement, as people who have achieved academically have, for the most part, gone through a system (i.e. university and the like) that is predominantly atheistic, and which would therefore cause a bias in the results.
:: But such a study is the sort of thing that you get a grant of tens of thousands of dollars for, and takes many months of work. I very much doubt that it would be within the capabilities of anyone here.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-27T02:36:28Z

Misterlinx: poor formatting

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, e.g "second-generation atheist", "children of atheist parent", "children of atheistic parents", "offspring of atheists", etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== A quick check ==

This is incredibly useless:

Search term = second generation atheist:

theism in the Third Millennium
I find them fascinating, because I am a second generation atheist and I did not have this deconversion experience. I have never felt that sensation of ...
www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/walker1.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Second Generation of Europe's Dawn of Reason Cassandra Reed (Reply ...
Second Generation of Europe's Dawn of Reason Cassandra Reed. From: "Cassandra Reed" To: "Positive Atheism" Sent: March 03, 2004 ...
www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8368.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Wa: Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations
In the second generation, the dominant groups have recruited leaders with ... Cliff Walker response to letter in Positive Atheism: “Don’t You Feel Lonely ...
www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-w.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
More results from www.positiveatheism.org »
American Atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ellen Johnson, a second-generation atheist, assumed control of American Atheists shortly after the disappearance. [5] It was later revealed that the three ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Atheist Weddings
At one wedding the author attended, the bride, a second generation Atheist, had chosen a popular tune called "The Wedding Song" without realizing that the ...
www.atheists.org/comingout/weddings/atheistweddings.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Welcome from the President
Ms. Johnson has been a nonbeliever all her life, having been raised as a second-generation Atheist. She received her B.A. in Environmental Studies and ...
www.atheists.org/welcome.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Amazon.com: Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist: Books ...
You will need your second copy to lend to others. You will be enthusiastic about .... Check out the 850 or the 880 with 2nd generation MSN Direct content. ...
www.amazon.com/Losing-Faith-Preacher-Atheist/dp/1877733075 - 206k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Amazon.com: Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short ...
Atheism is often considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief which .... Check out the 850 or the 880 with 2nd generation MSN Direct content. ...
www.amazon.com/Atheism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804243 - 184k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
More results from www.amazon.com »
Coverage of the 28th Convention of American Atheists
Ms. Johnson received her Masters Degree in Political Science from the New School for Social Research, and is a second-generation Atheist. ...
www.americanatheist.org/conv28/ - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Seattle Atheists - Founders
Wendy Britton is a second-generation atheist who was raised in Berkeley, California. Wendy’s parents always allowed her to find her own way and allowed her ...
www.seattleatheists.org/founders.shtml - 12k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Search term=ministers son

My ideas & Visions: Lee Hong Yi, the prime minister's son
Of course being a prime minister's son had privileges. Lee Hong Yi recent case, which he emailed to the top about an AWOL case, had garnered such widespread ...
henryleonghimwoh.blogspot.com/2007/07/lee-hong-yi-prime-ministers-son.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
PRESIDENT TALKS AS MINISTER'S SON; Pays a Tribute to His Father ...
The President said he was speaking not as President of the United States, but as the son of a minister of the Gospel. The Rev. Joseph R.-N11son, as painted ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0710F73F5D1A728DDDAB0A94DC405B858DF1D3 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
MINISTERS' SONS.
Mr. WOODROW WILSON, who is a minister's son, has been asked by the Rev. Dr. CHRISTIAN F. REISNER, "Why does the world so generally charge that ministers' ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A13FF395517738DDDAA0894D9415B818DF1D3 - 3k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Baptist ministers son - Letters to the Webmaster
Apostate and ex-christian from all Reformed, Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Protestant and Baptist Christian doctrine. Also included are apologetics pages ...
exchristian.net/letters/2003/06/baptist-ministers-son.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The Blue Fairy Book - Bronze Ring
The King followed this advice, and the minister's son was presented with a ... The two suitors left the town together, but the minister's son went off at a ...
www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/youth/fantasy/TheBlueFairyBook/Chap1.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored: Prime Minister's Son-in-Law ...
UMNO Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin, who is the Prime Minister's son-in-law, has urged the authorities to come down hard on a planned mass rally ...
malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2007/11/prime-ministers-son-in-law-khairy.html - 126k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Ian Paisley - The Huffington Post
The Northern Ireland delegation includes the first minister's son, Ian Paisley Jr, who has announced that he is to quit as a minister. ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/Ian+Paisley - 53k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The blog of Hungary: Hidden Cam: Financial minister's son involved ...
FIDESZ commented the event and said that it is weird that in the constituency of the Minister his sons' festival is supported by state companies like: ...
english-hungary.blogspot.com/2007/08/hidden-cam-financial-ministers-son.html - 87k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Jeanne Abdullah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Title, Wife Of The Prime Minister of Malaysia (The title First Lady belongs ... by the prime minister's son, Kamaluddin, and son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Abdullah - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Sharon sacks Israeli deputy minister - UPI.com
The scandal has been rocking the Likud less than a month before national elections, and has found the prime minister's son, Omri, in the limelight. ...
www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2002/12/31/sharon_sacks_israeli_deputy_minister/9308/ - 45k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-27T02:33:57Z

Misterlinx: /* Google Searches are not a way to quantify data */

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actually Philip, it is misleading to say that Google returns a ''worldwide'' result. It returns an English speaking worldwide result which, I would have thought, is likely to be dominated by the US (and will include basically Christian countries anyway). --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::: Incorrect? No. Misleading? Yes, perhaps you are correct there. But I would question how dominant the U.S. would be in the results. It would certainly be a large part of the results, and ''might'' even be more than half the results, but I doubt that it would be enough to overwhelm the rest so that the "world-wide" figure is pretty much the same as the American figure. There are more English speakers outside America than there are in America, although admittedly a lot of them would be in India and China, the latter, and likely the former, would not have a large presence on the English part of the Internet. But as for "Christian" countries, if you are talking ''historically'' Christian, you'd be right (ignoring India and China), but if you are talking about the percentage of the population that is sufficiently "Christian" to regularly go to church being similar to America, then you would be quite wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Might, yes. But since you havent done a study, we simply dont know. But hey, who needs studies, when you can can use Googlefu!--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 11:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Folks, please pursue [[deliberate ignorance]] somewhere else. A study would increase our knowledge, and I'm considering doing that. But no one has to pretend to be totally ignorant in the absence of a study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::I hope that remark was not addressed to me. Where is the deliberate ignorance? I am trying to engage with your suggestion, and thinking about whether it is actually possible to carry out meaningful research on your hypothesis, and how one might gather useful data. But I do think that the article in its present state is pretty pointless. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Google Searches are not a way to quantify data==

second generation mushroom=126,000 hits 
second generation marshmallow =22,400 hits

Does this tell you anything? No. It is utterly, utterly meaningless, like the 'data' presented as 'relevant' in the article. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:It tells me that second generation mushrooms are far far more productive that second generation Christians. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:Searching for the ''phrases'' will tell you more than searching for any occurrence of those words. The Google hits I got on those two ''as phrases'' were four and zero respectively. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I agree completely Philip - searching for phrases is more important. However, the numbers are still irrelevant. Drawing conclusions based on a search for "second generation atheist" as a comparative exercise assumes:

#Others have referred to the exact phrase in an online article
#No-one refers to the same phenomenon in another way, i.e.
**"second-generation atheist"
**"children of atheist parent"
**"children of atheistic parents"
**"offspring of atheists"
**etc
#the item you wish to compare to - children of Christians - are also consistently referred to.
#that such references are even on the internet to begin with

No serious research would ever include Google 'hits' as anything other than anecdotal. It's simply not quantifiable. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 21:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== A research proposal ==

'''Hypothesis''': "second-generation atheists" are less productive than atheists raised in religious environments. 
'''Experimental group''': atheists raised by atheist parents. 
'''Control group''': atheists raised by religious parents (it must be atheists raised by religious parents, and must not include theists raised by religious parents, which would introduce a confounding bias). 
'''Outcome measure''': various possibilities. Publications in scholarly journals (maybe citation score from the ISI databases)? Board membership of leading corporations? Political office? 
'''Study design''': it has to be a '''retrospective''' study, unless we are prepared to wait for people currently being raised by the two types of parents to reach adulthood. Maybe a '''case-control study''', with "achievers" as cases and "non-achievers" as controls (maybe take graduates from university X in year Y, and classify them on the basis of what they have achieved since, then go and investigate their backgrounds?). Or a simple '''cross-sectional study''' of atheist achievers, setting out to investigate their backgrounds, and measuring the ratio of second-generation to first-generation atheists. 

But then, regardless of the details of the study design, we hit a problem. How do we define ''atheist'' and ''religious''? Do we base it only on what people say about themselves publicly, which would presumably bias the sample towards those with strong views of whatever sort? Do we make a judgment on each person in the sample? Do we rely on what others say about them? How do we deal with those (and it may be the overwhelming majority) whose religious stance we don't know? Do we have to interview them all? And if it's difficult to establish someone's religious stance with any certainty, it is going to be even harder to find out anything meaningful about the upbringing or the parents. Further thought required ... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let's not forget that this needs to include all religions - sons of Imam's, sons of Saddhus (if there are any), sons of Rabbis. It's a tricky study to coordinate, thats for sure. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: I'm fine with including all religions. However, the control does not have to be [[atheistic]] children of [[atheists]]. Other control groups are possible, or perhaps simply use the general population (of comparable privilege) as a rough control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== A quick check ==

This is incredibly useless:

Search term = second generation atheist:

theism in the Third Millennium
I find them fascinating, because I am a second generation atheist and I did not have this deconversion experience. I have never felt that sensation of ...
www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/walker1.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Second Generation of Europe's Dawn of Reason Cassandra Reed (Reply ...
Second Generation of Europe's Dawn of Reason Cassandra Reed. From: "Cassandra Reed" To: "Positive Atheism" Sent: March 03, 2004 ...
www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8368.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Wa: Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations
In the second generation, the dominant groups have recruited leaders with ... Cliff Walker response to letter in Positive Atheism: “Don’t You Feel Lonely ...
www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-w.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
More results from www.positiveatheism.org »
American Atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ellen Johnson, a second-generation atheist, assumed control of American Atheists shortly after the disappearance. [5] It was later revealed that the three ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Atheist Weddings
At one wedding the author attended, the bride, a second generation Atheist, had chosen a popular tune called "The Wedding Song" without realizing that the ...
www.atheists.org/comingout/weddings/atheistweddings.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Welcome from the President
Ms. Johnson has been a nonbeliever all her life, having been raised as a second-generation Atheist. She received her B.A. in Environmental Studies and ...
www.atheists.org/welcome.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Amazon.com: Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist: Books ...
You will need your second copy to lend to others. You will be enthusiastic about .... Check out the 850 or the 880 with 2nd generation MSN Direct content. ...
www.amazon.com/Losing-Faith-Preacher-Atheist/dp/1877733075 - 206k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Amazon.com: Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short ...
Atheism is often considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief which .... Check out the 850 or the 880 with 2nd generation MSN Direct content. ...
www.amazon.com/Atheism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804243 - 184k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
More results from www.amazon.com »
Coverage of the 28th Convention of American Atheists
Ms. Johnson received her Masters Degree in Political Science from the New School for Social Research, and is a second-generation Atheist. ...
www.americanatheist.org/conv28/ - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Seattle Atheists - Founders
Wendy Britton is a second-generation atheist who was raised in Berkeley, California. Wendy’s parents always allowed her to find her own way and allowed her ...
www.seattleatheists.org/founders.shtml - 12k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Search term=ministers son

My ideas & Visions: Lee Hong Yi, the prime minister's son
Of course being a prime minister's son had privileges. Lee Hong Yi recent case, which he emailed to the top about an AWOL case, had garnered such widespread ...
henryleonghimwoh.blogspot.com/2007/07/lee-hong-yi-prime-ministers-son.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
PRESIDENT TALKS AS MINISTER'S SON; Pays a Tribute to His Father ...
The President said he was speaking not as President of the United States, but as the son of a minister of the Gospel. The Rev. Joseph R.-N11son, as painted ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0710F73F5D1A728DDDAB0A94DC405B858DF1D3 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
MINISTERS' SONS.
Mr. WOODROW WILSON, who is a minister's son, has been asked by the Rev. Dr. CHRISTIAN F. REISNER, "Why does the world so generally charge that ministers' ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A13FF395517738DDDAA0894D9415B818DF1D3 - 3k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Baptist ministers son - Letters to the Webmaster
Apostate and ex-christian from all Reformed, Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Protestant and Baptist Christian doctrine. Also included are apologetics pages ...
exchristian.net/letters/2003/06/baptist-ministers-son.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The Blue Fairy Book - Bronze Ring
The King followed this advice, and the minister's son was presented with a ... The two suitors left the town together, but the minister's son went off at a ...
www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/youth/fantasy/TheBlueFairyBook/Chap1.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored: Prime Minister's Son-in-Law ...
UMNO Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin, who is the Prime Minister's son-in-law, has urged the authorities to come down hard on a planned mass rally ...
malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2007/11/prime-ministers-son-in-law-khairy.html - 126k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Ian Paisley - The Huffington Post
The Northern Ireland delegation includes the first minister's son, Ian Paisley Jr, who has announced that he is to quit as a minister. ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/Ian+Paisley - 53k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
The blog of Hungary: Hidden Cam: Financial minister's son involved ...
FIDESZ commented the event and said that it is weird that in the constituency of the Minister his sons' festival is supported by state companies like: ...
english-hungary.blogspot.com/2007/08/hidden-cam-financial-ministers-son.html - 87k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Jeanne Abdullah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Title, Wife Of The Prime Minister of Malaysia (The title First Lady belongs ... by the prime minister's son, Kamaluddin, and son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Abdullah - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Sharon sacks Israeli deputy minister - UPI.com
The scandal has been rocking the Likud less than a month before national elections, and has found the prime minister's son, Omri, in the limelight. ...
www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2002/12/31/sharon_sacks_israeli_deputy_minister/9308/ - 45k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Talk:Liberal Christianity

2008-02-27T01:04:34Z

Misterlinx: Addendum

This page is much to kind to liberals. -- [[User:ChrisWa|ChrisWa]]
I suggest the addition of a section on criticisms or controversy.
:No, because then people like myself will whine. -_- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I finally understand conservapedia: it's a [[satire]] of what passes for conservative thought in the more extreme reaches of the 'net. That aschlafly is an absolute [[master]] of irony. This article started out as a sober rendition of liberal Christianity -- boring, boring, boring -- until aschlafly put his magic touch to it. Now it's hilariously funny, as long as I remember that this whole site is a [[parody]] of an actual encyclopedia! The joke's on me: it just took me too long to fully appreciate the subtle irony that permeates this site. And aschlafly -- if you're following this; if you're not really a committee of professional comedians -- my hat's off to you, sir! Keep up the wickedly satirical work; and you can count on me to keep the joke quiet, so that other pilgrims can experience the belly laugh I'm enjoying right now. [[User:Mrb|Mrb]]

Mrb, I suggest you take your [[liberal bias]] elsewhere. -- [[User:ChrisWa|ChrisWa]]

== most popular ==

Could we list these "most popular denominations" for the benefit of those readers who don't know the popularity of various denominations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Yes indeed, that is needed here. Examples are always good - perhaps the article could also list which Churches allow what - both the (Protestant/Anglican) Church of England and Church of Ireland permit women clergy, for example, and are much less strict on matters of dogma. And that's hardly a 'small' population - certainly not the former, at any rate. And it's worth remembering that different branches and countries within a Church can have radically different slants - another example being the far-left wing activist nature of the Catholic Church in 70's and 80's Salvador, Nicaragua and Northern Ireland, and today in many other countries. While remaining 'conservative' on liturgical and family matters, Churches have often strayed politically. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 19:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== These faiths also oppose endorsing same-sex unions, because it is a liberal position. ==

Are faiths opposed to liberal positions? Or are they not acting the way that they are because they believe they are following their god's teachings? Is it not the case for the truly faithful that their beliefs transcend mere politics? Or do gods actually have politics? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 19:34, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:There's also a small possibility that I misunderstood the meaning of the first sentence and rewrote it to mean something else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal Christianity

2008-02-27T00:56:02Z

Misterlinx: examples needed

This page is much to kind to liberals. -- [[User:ChrisWa|ChrisWa]]
I suggest the addition of a section on criticisms or controversy.
:No, because then people like myself will whine. -_- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I finally understand conservapedia: it's a [[satire]] of what passes for conservative thought in the more extreme reaches of the 'net. That aschlafly is an absolute [[master]] of irony. This article started out as a sober rendition of liberal Christianity -- boring, boring, boring -- until aschlafly put his magic touch to it. Now it's hilariously funny, as long as I remember that this whole site is a [[parody]] of an actual encyclopedia! The joke's on me: it just took me too long to fully appreciate the subtle irony that permeates this site. And aschlafly -- if you're following this; if you're not really a committee of professional comedians -- my hat's off to you, sir! Keep up the wickedly satirical work; and you can count on me to keep the joke quiet, so that other pilgrims can experience the belly laugh I'm enjoying right now. [[User:Mrb|Mrb]]

Mrb, I suggest you take your [[liberal bias]] elsewhere. -- [[User:ChrisWa|ChrisWa]]

== most popular ==

Could we list these "most popular denominations" for the benefit of those readers who don't know the popularity of various denominations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Yes indeed, that is needed here. Examples are always good - perhaps the article could also list which Churches allow what - both the (Protestant/Anglican) Church of England and Church of Ireland permit women clergy, for example, and are much less strict on matters of dogma. And that's hardly a 'small' population - certainly not the former, at any rate. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 19:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== These faiths also oppose endorsing same-sex unions, because it is a liberal position. ==

Are faiths opposed to liberal positions? Or are they not acting the way that they are because they believe they are following their god's teachings? Is it not the case for the truly faithful that their beliefs transcend mere politics? Or do gods actually have politics? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 19:34, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T21:38:25Z

Misterlinx: /* A research proposal */

John McCain

2008-02-26T17:36:18Z

Misterlinx: typo

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb|John McCain]]
'''John Sidney McCain III''' (born Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936 - ) <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from the state of [[Arizona]], having served 20 years after replacing [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1986. He is currently the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain is a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 Election]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref> McCain is a [[Baptist]].<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html McCain Identifies Himself as a [[Baptist]]</ref>

==Political Career==
McCain was elected to the [[House of Representatives]] from Arizona's 1st district in 1982 and served two terms before being elected to the [[Senate]] in 1986. In 2000, he pursued the presidency but lost his bid for the Republican nomination to [[George W. Bush]], the first time he had lost an election.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref> John McCain is currently running for presidency of the United States as a Republican.

==Political Record==

#Patriotism: as a [[POW]] for seven years during the [[Vietnam War]] (see below), McCain symbolizes the honor and sacrifice of [[America]]'s armed forces, and has the greatest claim of anyone to be Commander-in-Chief.
#National defense: McCain, a veteran, has been strong on national defense and a consistent supporter of the [[Iraq War]].
#World affairs: McCain has little patience for foreign opinion. In 2006, he said, "You can't expect the French to lead. You can't expect the Germans to lead. You can't even expect the British, our friends, to lead. The United States has to lead."<ref>http://www.azstarnet.com/news/138072</ref>
#[[Israel]]: McCain has a 25-year pro-[[Israel]] voting record, going even further than President [[George W. Bush]] in defending [[Israel]]'s most intense offensive against [[Lebanon]] in 24 years in response to Hezbollah's attacks on Israel.<ref>http://www.azstarnet.com/news/138072</ref> The [[Jerusalem]] Post observed that McCain has "the best chance of returning his party to the [[Reagan]]-era level of at least 30 percent of [[Jewish]] voters pulling the [[GOP]] lever. In the last five presidential elections it has ranged from 9 to 24 percent."<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1202211060463</ref> McCain received an extraordinary endorsement for President by the prominent former [[Democrat]] [[Joe Lieberman]], a leading spokesman for [[American]]-[[Israeli]] relations.
#[[Abortion]]: On Senate votes directly concerning abortion, McCain has voted on the pro-life side.
#[[Government]] Spending. McCain has vigorously advocated for the elimination of so-called "[[pork-barrel]]" spending. He voted against President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Act on the grounds that it was too costly.
#[[Evolution]]: McCain's position is that [[intelligent design]] should be taught along with the [[theory of evolution]].
#[[Campaign finance]]: In 2002, McCain joined with liberal Democrat Russell Feingold to prohibit independent groups from advertising about a candidate within many weeks of an election. This law prohibits ads that do not even recommend for whom to vote, but merely urge people to contact their representatives concerning a vote that the representatives will make in Congress. A court recently declared this unconstitutional.
#[[Same-sex marriage]]: In 2006, McCain joined Democrats and liberal Republicans in voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage. Later, on ''Hardball'', McCain declared, "On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine." Also, McCain's home state of Arizona was the only state to defeat a marriage referendum (in 2006), as McCain did nothing to support it.
#[[Gambling]]: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law allows Indian nations (which get nearly all their money from unregulated casinos) to make unlimited political donations, even though political donations by American citizens are strictly limited and political spending by corporations is prohibited.
#Tax cuts: McCain opposed President George W. Bush's tax cuts, on the argument that cutting taxes without also cutting spending was not actually a tax cut, but was a tax on future generations. He now supports keeping the Bush tax cuts in place.
#Criticism of the religious right: In his unsuccessful campaign in 2000, McCain criticized elements of the religious right because they were backing [[George W. Bush]].
#[[Gun control]]: In 2004, McCain held a "C" rating by the [[NRA]] on a scale from "A" to "F".<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200411021307.asp]</ref> He campaign as an advocate of the [[Second Amendment]] in 2004, but in 2002 McCain supported [[gun control]] by joining with [[Democrat]] [[Joseph Lieberman]] to push legislation that would shut down gun shows.<ref>[http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage10.html "Gun Shows and Gun Control: McCain Is at It Again!"]</ref>
#Immigration: In 2005-2006, McCain joined with liberal Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] to support a sweeping bill that was favorable to illegal aliens. It has not passed.
#"Gang of 14": On May 23, 2005, McCain was part of a group of 14 Senators who blocked the planned "nuclear option" for confirming blocked Republican nominees for the bench. Under this compromise a few judicial nominees were allowed to be confirmed (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor), but others (e.g., Henry Saad) remained blocked and had to withdraw.
#Senate Attendance Record. McCain has missed 33% of the Senate votes in early 2007, far more than the leading Democratic contenders.<ref>http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0331missedvotes0331.html</ref>

== Electability ==
McCain has the reputation as an independent-minded maverick <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid], [[Michael Shear|Michael D. Shear]], ''[[Washington Post]]'', March 15, 2007</ref> and Media Darling <ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/blumenthal McCain Mutiny], [[Max Blumenthal]], ''[[The Nation]]'', February 21, 2007</ref>. "McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the [[Mainstream media|mainstream liberal media]]." <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24669 'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms], [[David Limbaugh]], ''[[Human Events]]'', 01/25/2008</ref>

John McCain was a member of the [[Keating Five]], a scandal relating to the [[Savings and Loan Crisis]]. The Senate Ethics Committee criticized him for "questionable conduct."

John McCain has cancer (melanoma) and has undergone multiple operations for it.<ref>http://www.riskworld.com/PressRel/2001/01q3/PR01a027.htm</ref> Cancer was an issue that hurt the presidential candidacy of Paul Tsongas in 1992. However, it was not even mentioned in the 2004 presidential campaign, despite the fact that John Kerry was treated for prostate cancer in early 2003.

John McCain will is 71 years old, making him one of the oldest candidates to seek the presidency. Several issues relating to McCain's advanced aged and health have been discussed in the media.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/mccain.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref>

Among evangelicals, who form the multi-million vote bloc which was essential to electing President [[George W. Bush]], John McCain is weak on trust. [[James Dobson]], a leading evangelical, has already declared that he "would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."<ref>http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16473337.htm</ref> McCain has attempted to make amends with Dobson and the late evangelical leader [[Jerry Falwell]], including speaking at Falwell's Liberty University in an attempt to patch his relations with evangelicals.

McCain and [[Ron Paul]] are the only presidential candidates in either party to have served in the military.

==Personal Life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain was born in the [[Panama Canal]] Zone. He was educated in [[Alexandria]], [[Virginia]] before receiving his Bachelors of Science from the [[United States Naval Academy]] in 1958.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref>

McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980. His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley.

===McCain's Family===

*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta (Wright) McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==

* Faith of My Fathers (1999)
* Worth Fighting For (2002)
* Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember (2005)
* Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them (2007)

==Military Career==
McCain served in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 during the Vietnam Conflict and held as a [[Prisoner of War]] for seven years.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref>

::''On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain's plane was shot down over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi. His captors soon learned he was the son of a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy and repeatedly offered him early release, but McCain refused, not wanting to violate the military code of conduct and knowing that the North Vietnamese would use his release as a powerful piece of propaganda.''

::''He eventually spent five and a half years in various prison camps, three and a half of those in solitary confinement, and was repeatedly beaten and tortured before he was finally released, along with other American POWs, in March 1973, two months after the Vietnam cease fire went into effect.''

::''Though McCain had lost most of his physical strength and flexibility, he was determined to continue serving as a naval aviator. After a painful nine months of rehabilitation, he returned to flying duty, but it soon became clear that his injuries had permanently impaired his ability to advance in the Navy.'' <ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref>

McCain graduated from the National War College in 1974. Upon his retirement from the Navy in 1981, as a Captain, he had been commended with the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross.<ref> [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>

== Fundraising ==
[[Image:Mccain.jpg|left]]
McCain struggled to raise money for his campaign, a sign of weakness for a frontrunner. "Former [[Massachusetts]] Governor [[Mitt Romney]] raised $23 million for his presidential campaign in the first three months of [2007], almost doubling the total of top Republican contender John McCain. McCain, an [[Arizona]] senator, brought in about $12.5 million in the first quarter, his campaign said. 'We had hoped to do better,' said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. Former [[New York]] Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] said he raised $15 million, including more than $10 million in March alone."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZ7SuEo0wuMM&refer=home</ref>

== Votes Missed ==

As of August 2007, McCain had missed more votes during the current session of Congress than any Senator other than [[South Dakota]] [[Democrat]] [[Tim Johnson]], who had suffered a brain hemorrhage that had kept him from Congress. He had missed over 48% of his votes. <ref>Lawrence Journal-World, August 10, 2007</ref> This is due to the fact that he is running for President, and he has to attend political rallies across the country.

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about '''John McCain''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]

==References==

<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T17:32:07Z

Misterlinx: tidying

2008-01-25T04:49:26Z

Misterlinx: add CNN article

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' is a pejorative which refers to the general lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which some argue lead to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, and [[disease]].

Hollywood values can include a disrespect for:

* marriage
* patriotism
* religion
* accountability

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of [[Hollywood values]].

[[Hollywood values]] are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref>

* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* Kurt Cobain, 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, age 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* Jim Morrison, 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* Jimi Hendrix, 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.

(many more examples available)

==Heath Ledger==

The death of Heath Ledger, though indeed an actor, shows no signs (as yet) of being another tragic 'Hollywood Values' case. The details known to date are:

* Heath Ledger, 28, found dead naked in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> A rolled up $20 bill was reportedly also found near the body, and drug tests tested negative for drug residue. Ledger was known to be abstaining from alcohol and drugs recently.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/24/heath.ledger.dead/index.html</ref><ref>http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1580240/20080124/story.jhtml</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-01-25T04:42:40Z

Misterlinx: addendum

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-01-25T04:40:57Z

Misterlinx:

Hollywood values

2008-01-25T04:39:08Z

Misterlinx: No, I'm sorry, that was based on old information

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' is a pejorative which refers to the general lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which some argue lead to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, and [[disease]].

Hollywood values can include a disrespect for:

* marriage
* patriotism
* religion
* accountability

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of [[Hollywood values]].

[[Hollywood values]] are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref>

* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* Kurt Cobain, 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, age 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* Jim Morrison, 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* Jimi Hendrix, 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.

(many more examples available)

==Heath Ledger==

The death of Heath Ledger, though indeed an actor, shows no signs (as yet) of being another tragic 'Hollywood Values' case. The details known to date are:

* Heath Ledger, 28, found dead naked in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> A rolled up $20 bill was reportedly also found near the body, and drug tests tested negative for drug residue. Ledger was known to be abstaining from alcohol and drugs recently.<ref>http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1580240/20080124/story.jhtml</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Hollywood values

2008-01-25T04:37:16Z

Misterlinx: restructure

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' is a pejorative which refers to the general lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which some argue lead to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, and [[disease]].

Hollywood values can include a disrespect for:

* marriage
* patriotism
* religion
* accountability

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of [[Hollywood values]].

[[Hollywood values]] are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref>

* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* Kurt Cobain, 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, age 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* Jim Morrison, 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* Jimi Hendrix, 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.

(many more examples available)

==Heath Ledger==

The death of Heath Ledger, though indeed an actor, shows no signs (as yet) of being another tragic 'Hollywood Values' case. The details known to date are:

* Heath Ledger, 28, found dead naked in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> A rolled up $20 bill was reportedly also found near the body, and drug tests tested negative for drug residue. Ledger was known to be abstaining from alcohol and drugs recently.<ref>http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1580240/20080124/story.jhtml</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Hollywood values

2008-01-25T04:33:31Z

Misterlinx: updated news info

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' is a pejorative which refers to the general lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which some argue lead to rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, and [[disease]].

Hollywood values can include a disrespect for:

* marriage
* patriotism
* religion
* accountability

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of [[Hollywood values]].

[[Hollywood values]] are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref>
* Heath Ledger, 28, found dead naked in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> A rolled up $20 bill was reportedly also found near the body, and drug tests tested negative for drug residue. Ledger was known to be abstaining from alcohol and drugs recently.<ref>http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1580240/20080124/story.jhtml</ref>
* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* Kurt Cobain, 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, age 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* Jim Morrison, 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* Jimi Hendrix, 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.

(many more examples available)

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control

2008-01-25T04:24:17Z

Misterlinx: Sentences need definitive articles even before acronyms

Two medical organizations have submitted briefs to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] insisting that [[gun control]] is good for public health.<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsaAmerican%20Academy.pdf</ref>

Are they right? This essay, which welcomes suggestions by others, looks at the logic and evidence of the impact of [[gun control]] on public health.

[[Hitler]] was deterred from invading [[Switzerland]] during [[World War II]] in part for the same reason.

== Medical Arguments Against Gun Control ==

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Public Health Association (APHA) argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>

:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court's scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).

In fact, empirical evidence is virtually never used to interpret a constitutional provision, and was not used for that purpose in ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'' (expand). No credible theory of constitutional interpretation relies on or utilizes empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be cited for ''amending'' or changing the Constitution, not reinterpreting it. [[Judicial activism]] might rely on empirical evidence, but any method of interpretation that adheres to the text of the Constitution would not.

The APHA cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."

The APHA concedes that defensive uses of guns are significant, and that some studies have shown that defensive uses of guns outnumber criminal uses. But the APHA attempts to discredit those studies by questioning their methodology. Notably absent from the AHPA's brief, however, is any recognition of the ''deterrent'' effect on crime of gun ownership. The AHPA does even mention deterrence or deterrent once in its entire brief. While that effect may be difficult to quantity, there is no denying its significance.

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Academy of Pediatricians makes a "for the children" argument for [[gun control]] and against an individual right to bear arms under the [[Second Amendment]]. It calls the ownership of guns a "contagion" and insists that "children cannot be taught gun safety."



== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* Roland H. Beason, "COMMENTARY: Printz Punts on the Palladium of Rights: It Is Time to Protect the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms," 50 Ala. L. Rev. 561 (Winter, 1999)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor6.html (the benefit of firearms for public health)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm12.html (Gun death statistics from [[CDC]])
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm13.html (collecting cases on Second Amendment)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/wheeler1.html (when pediatricians become politicians)
[[category:Essay]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-01-25T04:23:07Z

Misterlinx:

Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control

2008-01-25T04:22:03Z

Misterlinx: fix commenting

Two medical organizations have submitted briefs to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] insisting that [[gun control]] is good for public health.<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsaAmerican%20Academy.pdf</ref>

Are they right? This essay, which welcomes suggestions by others, looks at the logic and evidence of the impact of [[gun control]] on public health.

[[Hitler]] was deterred from invading [[Switzerland]] during [[World War II]] in part for the same reason.

== Medical Arguments Against Gun Control ==

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Public Health Association (APHA) argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>

:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court's scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).

In fact, empirical evidence is virtually never used to interpret a constitutional provision, and was not used for that purpose in ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'' (expand). No credible theory of constitutional interpretation relies on or utilizes empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be cited for ''amending'' or changing the Constitution, not reinterpreting it. [[Judicial activism]] might rely on empirical evidence, but any method of interpretation that adheres to the text of the Constitution would not.

APHA cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."

APHA concedes that defensive uses of guns are significant, and that some studies have shown that defensive uses of guns outnumber criminal uses. But the APHA attempts to discredit those studies by questioning their methodology. Notably absent from the AHPA's brief, however, is any recognition of the ''deterrent'' effect on crime of gun ownership. The AHPA does even mention deterrence or deterrent once in its entire brief. While that effect may be difficult to quantity, there is no denying its significance.

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Academy of Pediatricians makes a "for the children" argument for [[gun control]] and against an individual right to bear arms under the [[Second Amendment]]. It calls the ownership of guns a "contagion" and insists that "children cannot be taught gun safety."



== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* Roland H. Beason, "COMMENTARY: Printz Punts on the Palladium of Rights: It Is Time to Protect the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms," 50 Ala. L. Rev. 561 (Winter, 1999)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor6.html (the benefit of firearms for public health)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm12.html (Gun death statistics from [[CDC]])
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm13.html (collecting cases on Second Amendment)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/wheeler1.html (when pediatricians become politicians)
[[category:Essay]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]

Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control

2008-01-25T04:20:04Z

Misterlinx: Commenting out incomplete sentence until it is actually written

Two medical organizations have submitted briefs to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] insisting that [[gun control]] is good for public health.<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsaAmerican%20Academy.pdf</ref>

Are they right? This essay, which welcomes suggestions by others, looks at the logic and evidence of the impact of [[gun control]] on public health.

[[Hitler]] was deterred from invading [[Switzerland]] during [[World War II]] in part for the same reason.

== Medical Arguments Against Gun Control ==

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Public Health Association (APHA) argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>

:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court's scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).

In fact, empirical evidence is virtually never used to interpret a constitutional provision, and was not used for that purpose in ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'' (expand). No credible theory of constitutional interpretation relies on or utilizes empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be cited for ''amending'' or changing the Constitution, not reinterpreting it. [[Judicial activism]] might rely on empirical evidence, but any method of interpretation that adheres to the text of the Constitution would not.

APHA cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."

APHA concedes that defensive uses of guns are significant, and that some studies have shown that defensive uses of guns outnumber criminal uses. But the APHA attempts to discredit those studies by questioning their methodology. Notably absent from the AHPA's brief, however, is any recognition of the ''deterrent'' effect on crime of gun ownership. The AHPA does even mention deterrence or deterrent once in its entire brief. While that effect may be difficult to quantity, there is no denying its significance.

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Academy of Pediatricians makes a "for the children" argument for [[gun control]] and against an individual right to bear arms under the [[Second Amendment]]. It calls the ownership of guns a "contagion" and insists that "children cannot be taught gun safety."

<!But children are the victims of a disarmed or emasculated citizenry. (Expand further, citing increase in use of bladed weapons in England; genocide; foreign invasion)>

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* Roland H. Beason, "COMMENTARY: Printz Punts on the Palladium of Rights: It Is Time to Protect the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms," 50 Ala. L. Rev. 561 (Winter, 1999)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor6.html (the benefit of firearms for public health)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm12.html (Gun death statistics from [[CDC]])
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm13.html (collecting cases on Second Amendment)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/wheeler1.html (when pediatricians become politicians)
[[category:Essay]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]

Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control

2008-01-25T04:15:34Z

Misterlinx: More grammatical corrections

Two medical organizations have submitted briefs to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] insisting that [[gun control]] is good for public health.<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsaAmerican%20Academy.pdf</ref>

Are they right? This essay, which welcomes suggestions by others, looks at the logic and evidence of the impact of [[gun control]] on public health.

[[Hitler]] was deterred from invading [[Switzerland]] during [[World War II]] in part for the same reason.

== Medical Arguments Against Gun Control ==

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Publish Health Association argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>

:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court's scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).

In fact, empirical evidence is virtually never used to interpret a constitutional provision, and was not used for that purpose in ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'' (expand). No credible theory of constitutional interpretation relies on or utilizes empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be cited for ''amending'' or changing the Constitution, not reinterpreting it. [[Judicial activism]] might rely on empirical evidence, but any method of interpretation that adheres to the text of the Constitution would not.

The group cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Academy of Pediatricians makes a "for the children" argument for [[gun control]] and against an individual right to bear arms under the [[Second Amendment]]. It calls the ownership of guns a "contagion" and insists that "children cannot be taught gun safety."

But children are the victims of a disarmed or emasculated citizenry. (Expand further, citing increase in use of bladed weapons in England; genocide; foreign invasion)

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* Roland H. Beason, "COMMENTARY: Printz Punts on the Palladium of Rights: It Is Time to Protect the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms," 50 Ala. L. Rev. 561 (Winter, 1999)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor6.html (the benefit of firearms for public health)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm12.html (Gun death statistics from [[CDC]])
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm13.html (collecting cases on Second Amendment)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/wheeler1.html (when pediatricians become politicians)
[[category:Essay]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]

Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control

2008-01-25T04:13:46Z

Misterlinx: Correcting your grammar- I'm assuming you meant 'is virtually never used'?

Two medical organizations have submitted briefs to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] insisting that [[gun control]] is good for public health.<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf</ref><ref>
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsaAmerican%20Academy.pdf</ref>

Are they right? This essay, which welcomes suggestions by others, looks at the logic and evidence of the impact of [[gun control]] on public health.

[[Hitler]] was deterred from invading [[Switzerland]] during [[World War II]] in part for the same reason.

== Medical Arguments Against Gun Control ==

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Publish Health Association argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>

:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court's scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).

In fact, empirical evidence is virtually never used to interpret a constitutional provision, and was not used for that purpose in ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'' (expand). No credible theory of constitutional interpretation relies or utilizes empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be cited for ''amending'' or changing the Constitution, not reinterpreting it. [[Judicial activism]] might rely on empirical evidence, but any method of interpretation that adheres to the text of the Constitution would not.

The group cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."

The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Academy of Pediatricians makes a "for the children" argument for [[gun control]] and against an individual right to bear arms under the [[Second Amendment]]. It calls the ownership of guns a "contagion" and insists that "children cannot be taught gun safety."

But children are the victims of a disarmed or emasculated citizenry. (Expand further, citing increase in use of bladed weapons in England; genocide; foreign invasion)

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* Roland H. Beason, "COMMENTARY: Printz Punts on the Palladium of Rights: It Is Time to Protect the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms," 50 Ala. L. Rev. 561 (Winter, 1999)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor6.html (the benefit of firearms for public health)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm12.html (Gun death statistics from [[CDC]])
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm13.html (collecting cases on Second Amendment)
* http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/wheeler1.html (when pediatricians become politicians)
[[category:Essay]]
[[category:Second Amendment]]

Hollywood values

2008-01-25T02:20:16Z

Misterlinx: No evidence of 'Hollywood Values' in this case - the reference provided was heresay.