Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: The atheism blues

2011-09-30T03:50:57Z

SteveK:

Ahem* It's atheism with an "i."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why not write a song about the non-atheists who have valid criticisms of your article who attempt to point them out only to be rebuffed and insulted? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:33, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::What did Jesus teach us? He taught us to appreciate persecution, not to raise the sword against it. Conservative, I expected better from you. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:17, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Based on? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:21, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
It's fascinating to watch other people guide your behavior, User:Conservative. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 23:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-29T05:04:28Z

SteveK: /* Reasonable debate offer */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2011-09-28T21:47:15Z

SteveK: /* Pro Tip */

==Pro Tip==
It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled ''Bestiality and Britain'' (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. I suggest taking a reading comprehension course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== some suggested improvements ==

I have taken the liberty of suggesting some improvements. How do you all like these edits:

'''Removed picture of Boteach as he has nothing to do with bestiality'''

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

<s>In 2011, in an article entitled ''Godless Britain'' Shmuley Boteach reported in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'':</s>
{{cquote|<s>Britain today has become one of the most godless societies on earth. Its principle religious exports today are thinkers who despise religion. From Richard Dawkins, who has compared religion to child abuse, to my friend Christopher Hitchens, who titled his 2007 book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," the British have cornered the market on being anti-God, at least the Christian and Jewish varieties.

While 92% of Americans believe in God, only 35% in Britain do and 43% say they have no religion, according to Britain's National Centre for Social Research. The number of people who affiliate themselves with the Church of England was 23% of the population in 2009 from 40% in 1983. In truth though, if Britain's Christian tradition is dying out, the leaders of the faith have only themselves to blame, for perpetuating the country's highly centralized religious structure.</s>[1]}} '''(nothing whatever to do with Bestiality)'''

<s>On April 26, 2001, in an article entitled ''Swedes have more and more animal sex'' the Swedish news website Nettavision reported:</s>
{{cquote|<s>No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault.</s>[2]}} '''Unfortunately this has nothing to do with Britain'''

See also:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

----
;Bible on bestiality and study on bestiality

<s>The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).</s> '''Nothing to do with Britain'''

<s>A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[3] The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.</s>[4] 
'''Nothing to do with Britain'''
{{unsigned|DamianJohn}}

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2011-09-28T06:06:48Z

SteveK: Created page with "==Pro Tip== It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled ''Bestiality and Britain'' (which I gather is ..."

Talk:Atheism and bestiality

2011-09-28T02:51:26Z

SteveK: Bestiality and search engines.

==I don't even know what to say about this article...==
I was going to leave Conservapedia but when I see this kind of article, I just can't. Conservative, do you know that you are becoming very offensive? 
I heard that you were always eager to debate. I have a lot of questions about christianity & atheism that I would like to discuss. Would you be willing to answer my questions ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:56, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is the reason why you don't know what to say about the [[Atheism and bestiality]] article is that I pick reputable sources plus have 6 pages of relevant information? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Then, would you accept my offer to debate ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:36, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

== Absolutely revolting. Andy Schlafly, please put an end to this. ==

Disgusted. As a Christian I am reviled by this. There are no links that support what this Peter Singer said, merely heresy from another website which doesn't state its sources. Then it is taken to paint a group of people in the same stripe. Absolutely immoral, unsupported filth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:What's next? '''''Atheism and mastur<nowiki />bation'''''? Oh wait, [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage|mastur<nowiki />bation]] is a naughty word - even the spam-filter doesn't like it. Bestiality should be added to the list! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::Yeah this is really bad, not that anything else this user has done has been that much better. -1 for lack of fatty fat fat ad hominems and lack of bunny photos. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 17:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::: I suggest [[Atheism and Mass Murder]] or [[Atheism and evolutionary racism | Atheism and Racism]]. Oh wait, it already exists ! That's just great encyclopedic content ! And so objective by the way !--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:22, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I saw your response and noticed that you started it off with "I suggest..." so I stopped reading it, but here's an article on flying cats instead. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 17:23, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::there is no support for this claim - this user is trolling. Lowering the tone immensely. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::User:conservative is trying too hard--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:32, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It was incredibly easy to find 4 pages of relevant material on this topic. Given the depravity of atheism this is not entirely surprising. As far as what is next, I have not given the topic or timing of my next article on atheism although I have alluded to [[User talk:CamilleT|an upcoming article on atheism]] to a Conservapedian. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:11, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is wonderful, when shall we see it? And Conservative, you state that atheists are depraved. I personally know many atheists and none of them are depraved in any way you have implied. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::SeanS, it is just useless, for Conservative loves to make up a rule from 1 case...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:22, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

==Support ?==
Conservative, could you please provide some support that Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::I cited a source plus in case you are forgetting you are on the information superhighway. I suggest going to a search engine and typing in the words Peter Singer. The reason I am taking you to task is that I think you are being lazy and/or contentious. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:01, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Please avoid being insulting, Conservative. I did actually googled it but I found nothing except from anti-atheists websites (like creation.com) which cannot really be considered as objective on this matter.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Please do not waste my time and second I don't believe you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh you're right, that's just a waste of time. I forgot that Conservapedia is not a democracy, it's all about aristocracy: the king Andy who rules his kingdom seconded by his lords. And when Lord Conservative speaks, no one may dare oppose him. Thanks for reminding me of this.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:36, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

== Error ==

Where ever you copied this from, Conservative. There's a misplaced "2" in your Stalin paragraph (clearly should have been a reference).
There's also a typo in reference #11.
[[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 02:46, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, removed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:28, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

== To Aschlafly: Unprotect request ==

As it appears you believe this article adds to Conservapedia's value as an educational resource, can you please unprotect it - and make sure it '''stays''' unprotected - so that the entire CP community can help to improve it? Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:57, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Extension suggestion ==

Could someone add the passages of the Scripture regarding bestiality (Leviticus 18: v 23, Leviticus 20: v 15 and Deuteronomy 27: v 21)please?
I would also suggest an historic part about bestiality in Europe (for instance the story of ''Leda and the swan'' in ancient Greek mythology) and how the rise of christianity helped to rid Europe and the world of bestiality. Or would that be a stand-alone article? À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 14:53, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Added Bible versus. Second, please create a section/article here [[User: VProppand/atheism-bestiality-Europe]] and focus on how/why Christianity helped greatly reduce bestiality in Europe and then I can add it. Also, if there is somewhat of a resurgence in bestiality in a Europe that is less Christianized and you can document it in a non-salacious way, then do that too. Please make sure you use reputable sources (not salacious sources) and I would prefer no pictures. Indicate on this talk page when you are done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:17, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::VPropp, here are sources that are interesting and it relates to history: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7858632 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19239958 Also, I can check back on this web page to see if you did the article. When should I check back? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:20, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Psst! I got a secret for you...==

As the author of this entry is quite fond of touting how prominently their articles show up in search results... one has to ask: why is [[User:Conservative]] purposely trying to undermine his/her own efforts? And by extension, Conservapedia as a whole? I am sure that the author of this very encyclopedic entry is well aware that most God fearing people enable the "Safe Search" feature so as not to be assaulted with any vile anti-Christian filth. Well guess what chief? With safe search on, the most popular search engine in the world filters out all pages containing the word ''bestiality''. So go right on adding that word to your feverish heart's content. But keep in mind that every page you pepper with your current favorite word, is another page that disappears from millions of search results. You're welcome. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 22:51, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Jimmie Davis

2011-08-14T03:02:05Z

SteveK: It's a start, help out...

{{Officeholder
|name=James Houston Davis
|image=
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse= Alverna Adams Anna Carter Gordon
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=47th
|state=Louisiana
|terms=May 9, 1944 – May 11, 1948
|preceded= Sam Houston Jones
|former=y
|succeeded= Earl Long
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Louisiana
|terms=May 10, 1960 – May 12, 1964
|preceded= Clarence C. Aycock
|former=y
|succeeded= John McKeithen
}}

}}
'''James "Jimmie" Houston Davis''' (September 11, 1899 – November 5, 2000), was a famous gospel and popular music singer who went on to serve two non-cosecutive terms as Republican governor of Lousiana.

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T05:45:34Z

SteveK: added 36th POTUS

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Lyndon Baines Johnson]] - public high school teacher
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before Senator of Wisconsin.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist), now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]], and architect of the fall of [[communism]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - 19th century soldier. Defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Barack Obama]] - claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T04:22:30Z

SteveK: /* Definition of influence */

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-08T01:47:05Z

SteveK: /* No clear influence in politics */ Added 2. Removed Mr Cain because he hasn't held public office yet.

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist)
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Barack Obama]] (see also below)*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - professional bodybuilder, actor
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010

== Careers outside of government need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general
*[[Thomas Jefferson]] - land surveyor <ref>[http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/surveying Surveying]</ref>
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] - land surveyor, tavern keeper, storekeeper, postmaster, lawyer <ref>[http://www.surveyhistory.org/abraham_lincoln_-_the_surveyor1.htm Abraham Lincoln - The Land Surveyor]</ref>
*[[Barack Obama]] - ???
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[George W. Bush]] - oil business, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]
(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-07T23:47:42Z

SteveK: Added Hoover

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - peanut farmer
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Al Franken]] - comedian (Saturday Night Live)
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - geologist, mining engineer
*[[Thomas Jefferson]] - land surveyor <ref>[http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/surveying Surveying]</ref>
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback)
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] - land surveyor, tavern keeper, storekeeper, postmaster, lawyer <ref>[http://www.surveyhistory.org/abraham_lincoln_-_the_surveyor1.htm Abraham Lincoln - The Land Surveyor]</ref>
*[[Barack Obama]] - attorney
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist)
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]
*[[Rick Santorum]] - attorney
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor

== Not yet influential in politics ==

*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*[[Herman Cain]] - CEO of Godfathers Pizza and accomplished businessman
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*Rick Snyder - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Neornithes

2011-08-02T02:17:15Z

SteveK: added links

'''Neornithes''' is the scientific term (phylogenetic nomenclature) for '''[[birds|modern birds]]'''. Modern birds are a group of animals that all posses similar physical, anatomical and biological features. Some of these features are (but are not limited to): [[feather|feathers]], wings, egg-laying, lightweight bones, and toothless beaks.

Neornithes

2011-08-02T02:04:09Z

SteveK: created article to fix most common red link in bird articles.

'''Neornithes''' is the scientific term (phylogenetic nomenclature) for '''modern birds'''. Modern birds are a group of animals that all posses similar physical, anatomical and biological features. Some of these features are (but are not limited to): feathers, wings, egg-laying, lightweight bones, and toothless beaks.

Motorcycle

2011-08-02T01:38:01Z

SteveK:

A '''motorcycle''' (also known as a '''motorbike''' or simply '''bike''') is a [[single-track]], two-wheeled motor vehicle. Motorcycles come in wide variety of styles and designs depending on their intended use, which may range from recreational usage to a daily commute.

In many poorer nations, motorcycles are the main form of motorized transportation, as they are cheaper to purchase, operate, and maintain than a larger vehicles.

==Fuel efficiency==
Many standard 4-stroke motorcycles get 55 miles or better to the gallon, but require regular maintenance similar to most automobiles. 2 stroke motorcycles, however produce much more pollution, can achieve great mileages, over even 100-170 mpg. Their rudimentary design achieves twice the power, but are less refined than four strokes.

==Types of Motorcycle==

Most motorbikes can be put into one of three categories:

'''Street bikes''' are meant for riding on streets.

'''Off-road bikes''' are meant for riding through unpaved areas too rough for a street bike.

'''Dual-purpose bikes''' are a middle-ground between the two other classes, functioning well in both areas. However, the requirements for both often conflict, so the bikes are usually better at one than the other.
'''Choppers''' Motorcycles based on a cruiser-style frame with longer front forks.

'''Sport bikes''' Fast and sleek motorcycles created to give maximum performance for racing or spirited road riding.

Popular brands of motorcycles include[[Harley-Davidson]], [[Honda]], [[Yamaha]], Kawazaki, Suzuki, Aprilia etc. Minor brands include Royal Enfield, BSA, Sybian and Triumph. [[Harley-Davidson]] is the only major American manufacturer of motorcycles.
[[Category: Transportation]]

Political cards

2011-07-18T05:17:24Z

SteveK: grammar

'''Political cards''' are tactics used by [[liberals]] in politics, the media, and other adversarial settings in order to appeal to emotion or even prejudice rather than reason. The term is a metaphor for what happens in the card game of [[bridge]], where one card can be played to "trump" (defeat) all other cards.

In contrast with most card games, however, a political card can be played at any time, no matter how irrational or irrelevant to the topic. Many liberal articles and commentaries consist of little more than playing one or more political cards.

A card is "played" when one side relies on a particular issue in order to gain an often-unjustified upper hand in the debate or controversy.

Liberals have had a difficult time playing a [[political card]] against the [[Tea Party Movement]], due to its amorphous nature.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Political card
!Meaning
!Example
!Advantage
!Disadvantage
|-
|sexist card
|allegations men are ignorant slobs and women need a protected status as a voting block within the Democratic party.
|[[Lawrence Summers]] was driven from his presidency of [[Harvard]] for merely mentioning the possibility that women may not have as much aptitude for math as men.
|safe haven for angry liberals and women
|implies women are helpless unless they receive special treatment from the government
|-
|[[race card]]
|Bringing race into a debate by suggesting that criticism is racially motivated or that one's opponent is racist
|Used effectively to silence criticism of Obama in 2008
|prove you're not a racist is like saying, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
|the boy who cried wolf.
|-
| Mediscare card
| Scare grandpa and grandma into thinking their government benefits will be cut off
| Used in a recent special congressional election for a [[Democrat]] in a [[Republican]]-leaning district in [[New York]] in 2011.
| fear sells
| people aren't stupid.
|-
|Third rail card
|Proposals to reform [[Social Security]] result in political suicide.
|Under President Obama, Social Security for the first time in its history, has a negative cash flow and has been paying out more in benefits than the cash it demands from younger workers.<ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273181-obama-agenda-social-security-still-the-third-rail</ref>
|Slander your opponent for proposing solutions.
|Political and economic stagnation.
|-
|hate speech card
|Anything that highlights or is critical of the historical record of liberal governance.
|The [[Obama administration]] has used the [[FCC]] to harass and intimidate what it considers its media critics. <ref>http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print#</ref>
|programmed response for liberal failures.
|mimics liberal talking points
|-
|[[Xenophobia]] card
|Bringing country of origin into a debate by suggesting that criticism is motivated by a fear of foreigners (eg. Australians)
|
|At first seems to be an effective way to pose the opponent as racist.
|Ultimately fails when both debaters are of the same country or when the person making the original claim is from the country of the claim.
|-
|anti-gay card
|Calling opponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality.
|Used against [[Rick Santorum]] leading up to his defeat for reelection in 2006
|assumes the posture of [[civil rights]] advocacy.
|African-Americans oppose the promotion of gay rights in greater numbers than the general population of the United States as a whole.<ref>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/10/30/proposition_8</ref>
|-
|intolerant card
|demonstrating inconsistencies in liberal ideology.
|
|in a democracy, the voice of opposition can always be labeled intolerant
|
|-
|"Responsible" Republican card
|Used to imply a few Republicans, mostly [[RINO]]s, are "responsible."
|"During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican." <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2251101/</ref>
|Who killed Responsible Republicans? [[Bill Kristol]], of course. <ref>Ibid.</ref>
|In 1990 President [[George H.W. Bush]] was hailed as a Responsible Republican for breaking his "read my lips" pledge.
|-
|extreme card
|in typical [[MSM]] [[newspeak]], anything right of center or not liberal.
|Bill and [[Hillary Clinton]] persistently referred to the Republican [[Newt Gingrich|Contract with America]] as extreme; [[President Clinton]] ultimately signed 7 of 10 Contract items in to law.
|Prior to the [[9/11 attacks]], was used interchangeably with "[[terrorist]]" by mainstream media sources.
|Polls show mainstream journalists are more liberal than the American public.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2004/pdf/liberal_media.pdf The Liberal Media, ''Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It''], Rich Noyes, Director of Research, Media Research Center, June 30, 2004.</ref>
|-
|greedy card
|Portraying [[capitalist]]ic ideas or actions as greedy
|Attacking oil companies for their profits, even though oil companies create jobs and pay into the federal Treasury, and profits make up a reasonable portion of total revenue.
|Most people care about money and fairness.
|Seems hypocritical if the person using the strategy is wealthy (like most liberal politicians) or benefits from capitalism (like all Americans)
|-
|millionaires and billionaires card
|[[class warfare]]
|[[President Obama]] said on June 29, 2011, "I'm proposing we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." <ref>The ''[[Washington Post]]'' Fact Checker column said, "in the context of a $4 trillion goal, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-facts-in-president-obamas-news-conference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html it is essentially meaningless]. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."</ref>
|appeals to voters motivated by [[envy]]
|politicians that use it are dependent on campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires.
|-
| trickle down card
| anti-free market agitprop
| [[Nobel Laureate]] [[Paul Krugman]] claims GOP zombies will eat Obama's brain for extending the Bush tax cuts. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/12/20/paul-krugman-says-gop-zombies-are-going-eat-obamas-brain Paul Krugman Says GOP 'Zombies' Are Going to Eat Obama's Brain], ''Newsbusters.</ref>
| apparently there is a ready market for hyperbole and fear among leftists.
| Ignores the fact the Reagan reforms gave birth to the longest, most extended era of peacetime prosperity in U.S. history.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344230339019304.html</ref>
|-
|global warming denier card
|opposition to using [[junk science]] to promote political [[activism]].
|[[Global warming]] activists have likened climate change to Nazi atrocities. <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/global-warming-and-the-ho_b_74210.html</ref>
|equates moderates with ignorant fascists.
|belittles and denigrates victims of the [[Nazi]] [[holocaust]].<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html</ref>
|-
| anti-environment card
| A claim that tries to portray the opponent badly by placing them as someone who "hates the environment".
| "The GOP wants babies to be fed poison from the environment" <ref>http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/new-tv-ad-for-epa-republicans-poison-babies/</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSTnoeNNbzQ Watch the Video]
| The simple-minded will swallow any line of garbage.
| purview of extremists
|-
| over-sensitive card
| failure to behave in a realistic manner and being afraid to upset people
|
|
|
|-
|uneducated card
|Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president.
|Reading from a prop, Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato", and [[liberals]] destroyed him by playing this card.
|A momentary lapse is seized upon to make a person look like an idiot.
|Works well until a liberal candidate utters a statement like the United States is made up of 57 states.
|-
|fundamentalist card
|seeks to link Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism.
|[[Richard Dawkins]] screed, ''[[The God Delusion]]''.
|puts [[Billy Graham]] and [[bin Laden]] in the same boat.
|A majority of Americans are neither atheist nor [[secular humanist]]s.
|-
|[[Dominionist]] card
|implies [[evangelical]] [[Christian]]s want to impose an [[Iran]]ian style [[theocracy]] on the United States.
|Used by [[misogynist]]s to attack [[Michelle Bachmann]]. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/KeepLeft/michele-bachmann-john-quincy-adams_n_885868_94606213.html]
|appeals to the fears of [[atheist]]s and religious bigots.
|based on social [[pseudoscience]], [[propaganda]], and journalistic hacks.
|-
|free speech card
|cry "free speech," "free speech" for everything offensive to Christianity, while censoring the truth and limiting political speech
| [[Supreme Court]] ruled exotic dancing protected free expression but disallowed a high school football team's pregame prayer under the same grounds.
|Legally it is technically correct
|Just because something is "free speech" does not mean it is not wrong
|-
| creationist card
|
|
|
|
|-
| birther card
| claims those asking unanswered questions are conspiracy kooks
| ''Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal'' <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/truthers-vs-birthers-not-all-conspiracy-theories-are-created-equal/?singlepage=true ''Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal; Birthers aren't remotely as crazy — and dangerous — as Truthers'']. September 23, 2009 by Arthur Chrenkoff. Pajama's Media.</ref>
| hides the question of [[natural born citizen]]
| exposes the original meaning of [[natural born citizen]].
|-
|conspiracy theory card
|the one making the charge cannot explain facts.
|Hillary Clinton charged that her husband's behavior was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
|provides plausible reasons for the simple minded.
|contradictory evidence leads to more conspiracy theories.
|-
|[[homophobia]] card
|an irrational fear.
|Opposition to the radical redefinition of marriage as expressed in California's [[Proposition 8]] was deemed homophobia.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html</ref>
|Old stand-by in the arsenal of liberal slander attacks.
|Attempts to ostracize and criminalize an emotional disorder. Many if not most homophobes are gay.
|-
| abortion card
| a defense of feminism
| Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] implied that Justice Bork would turn back Roe V. Wade forcing women to have back-alley abortions.
| fear Republican laws and personal responsibility
| you can't run from your conscience and consequence of actions can lead to a lifetime of suffering
|-
| liberal mocking card
| mocking a conservative opponent rather than dealing with substantive issues
| ''The Daily Show''
| often pleases supporters
| makes person look petty
|-
|snark card
|Using snarky (sometimes even offensive) humor to attack the opponent.
|Rachael Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc.
|Often a [[laugh track|cue]] for other liberals to "join in" the laughter
|Nobody else is laughing (or they are laughing at the snark attempt-er).
|-
|Jesus card
|Claiming "What would Jesus do" to try to paint the opponent as not a true Christian (a common liberal tactic when cornered on a religious issue, such as [[homosexuality]])
|As noted above, liberals often use this to defend homosexuality <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/what-would-jesus-do-if-in_b_480013.html</ref> by claiming that Jesus never specifically mentioned it.
|Certain Bible passages can easily be [[quote mine]]d.
|A true Christian can easily find the flaws in such an argument by pointing our how it is taken out of context.
|-
|gun nut card
|slurs anyone who wants to take away defensive weapons
|
|
|angers those with guns
|-
|[[Liberal redefinition]] card
| changing the definition of a word to suit one's purposes
|
|
|
|-
| misuse of statistics card
| Liberals often use certain "trends" to support their claims.
| Citing the Clinton surplus vs the Bush deficit
| At first makes the user look like they have done their research
| Often taken out of context (for example the Clinton surplus was largely due to a Republican congress and the end of the Cold War, while the Bush deficit was caused greatly by two wars and need for Homeland Security.
|-
| cherry picking data card
| selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't
|
|
| dishonest and easy to point out counterexamples
|-
| never-admitting-a-mistake card
| inability to admit a mistake; lack of [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindness]]
| [[Thomas Sowell]] writes, (a) goals are redefined after the fact to give the public the illusion of success; (b) bad motives are ascribed to the opposition or society in general; (c) good intentions of the anointed are highlighted; and (d) they attack the accuracy of the data showing failure. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2002/12/vision-of-anointed-by-thomas-sowell.html ''The Vision of the Anointed]'', Chap. 2.</ref>
|
|
|-
| denying [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] card
|
|
|
|
|-
| [[Anti-Americanism|Anti-American]] card
| Denying [[ American exceptionalism|American exceptionalism]]. Trouts out false examples of how European countries have better standard of living.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Deceit|deceit]] card
| Lies or distorts truth in order to win argument.
|
|
|
|-
| [[Poe's law|Poe's]] card
| Impersonation of [[Conservatives]] to discredit their positions.Liberals often create straw men during this impersonation.
|
|
|
|-
| Elite card
| claiming that a policy benefits the rich and powerful
|
|
|
|-
| Compassion card
| arguing someone must be right because he has more compassion
|
|
|
|-
| Hypocrite card
| claiming some inconsistency in positions
| The idea that a pro-lifer must oppose death penalty
| Some people actually buy it.
| Often the people making the Hypocrite claim exhibit hypocrisy themselves (see [[Liberal hypocrisy]])
|-
| Guilt by association card
| insinuating that someone is bad because he was once in the same room with some extremist
| "shaking hands with [[Saddam Hussein]]." <ref>[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=shaking+hands+with+Saddam+Hussein&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS425US426 Google Search Results].</ref>
| slander at will
| look who's calling the kettle back.
|-
| Google bomb card
| sabotaging Google searches
| [[Rick Santorum]]
|
|
|-
|working families card
|class warfare
|See Democratic Talking Points, [[2008_Democratic_National_Convention#Democratic_National_Convention|2008 Presidential Nominating Convention]], from the ''[[New York Times]]''. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/democrats-talking-points-on-the-convention/]
|Postures [[Democrat]]s as advocates for people who hold jobs and have children.
|Politicians who employ such rhetoric invariably work to pass legislation that destroys jobs and undermines families.
|-
| nativist card
| the idea people born in a given country are xenophobic exclusionary bigots.
| Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.
| divides the people against themselves
| hard to prove in a [[melting pot]]
|-
|[[Godwin's Law|Godwin]] card
|invoking the name of Hitler.
|Liberal [[George_Soros#2004_Presidential_Elections_in_the_United_States|George Soros]] likened the Bush administration to the Nazi regime.
|appeals to emotion and extremists, and less educated leftists.
|typical [[totalitarian]] tactic.
|-
|Patriot card
|Seeks to paint loyal Americans as racist.
| "patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism"<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride_2.htm</ref>
|Some "Patriot movement" groups call for tighter immigration control.
|Democrats can be sensitive to the charge of being unpatriotic.
|-
|Immigration card
|implies Democrats are sympathetic to a person's immigration status, despite the fact there is no historical record of legislative achievements in this area.
|The promised [[DREAM Act|Obama Dream Act]], a "cynical exercise in political charades", failed to pass the Democratic controlled Senate, 55-41.
|Seeks to pit voters against each other along racial and ethnic lines, which Democrats view as a win.
|Most immigrants come to America seeking conservative values, such as a [[right to work]], lower taxes, being free of big government oppression, etc.
|-
|Nixon's Southern Strategy card
|implies Richard Nixon appealed to Southern Democrats and racists after Lyndon Johnson passed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].
| "probably the biggest lie that's been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government" <ref>[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8123561/nixons_southern_strategy.html Nixon's Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community], Ken Raymond, June 6, 2011. associatedcontent from Yahoo.</ref>
|labels Southerners as racist.
|ignores the fact that (1) Richard Nixon did not carry the South; a Democrat, [[George Wallace]] received 49 [[electoral votes]] exclusively from the South; and (2) passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was entirely dependent on Republican votes with Democrats in both houses voting against passage.<ref>Final tally in the House among Republicans was 138 to 34; Democrats 152-96; in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against passage while only 6 Republicans opposed. [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml]</ref>
|-
|neo-confederate card
|implies [[Civil War]] buffs want to bring back [[segregation]] and [[slavery]].
|On the 150th anniversary of start of the Civil War, [[MSNBC]]'s liberal hosts never missed an opportunity to associate today's conservative movement with the [[Confederacy]], [[secession]], [[slavery]] and racism.<ref>http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/_MSNBCs_UnCivil_War_on_the_Right.html</ref>
|intimidating to conservative Bluedog Democrats.
|may backfire and evoke [[bipartisanship]].
|-
|redneck card
|implication rural inhabitants are uneducated and possibly racist
|most often applied to [[Ron Paul]] supporters
|pejorative aimed at Bluedog Democrats, [[Red State]] dwellers, and others in flyover country.
|When motivated, this group forms an important part of a center-right majority.
|-
| bitter and cling to guns or religion card
| Why don't common people vote Democrat?
| Used by Obama and [[Howard Dean]].
| Attempts to justify Democrat's failure to coffeehouse liberals, and persuade hick voters by belittling them.
| Insulting to average voters.
|-
|[[NASCAR]] card
|insinuates NASCAR fans are uneducated and racist
|NASCAR fans tend to vote Republican,<ref>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/04/24/109269/-Why-do-NASCAR-Fans-Vote-Republican</ref> more so than fans of most others sports.
|Republicans failed to balance the budget by cutting $7.4 million from the [[Pentagon]]'s sponsorship of NASCAR for Army recruiting. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/sports/autoracing/19nascar.html</ref>
|NASCAR has an estimated 75 million fans.
|-
| insensitive card
| failure to behave in a [[politically correct]] manner.
| a former Miss California was striped of her crown for saying she thought marriage was between a man and a woman. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/04/20/carrie-prejean-says-answer-gay-marriage-question-cost-miss-usa-crown/</ref>
| ostracizing others among the unenlightened masses leads to feelings of superiority.
| not everyone keeps up to date on the lastest liberal [[tripe]].
|-
|[[McCarthyism]] card
|accuse someone of being like the (false) liberal portrayal of [[Joseph McCarthy]]
|''"Racist!" as an Epithet of Repression'' <ref>[http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/racist/ ''“Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression''], Dr. Paul Trout, Montana Professor Journal, Fall 1995.</ref>
|baseless smear, such as calling someone a racist. Extremely flexible, and with great glee you can ruin someone's life just for fun.
|Requires no morals or conscience.
|}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:political cards]]

Liopleurodon

2011-07-12T01:44:23Z

SteveK: /* Creationist View */ fixed redlink

{{Taxonomy
|name=Liopleurodon
|image=
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=Sauropterygia
|order=Plesiosauria
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=Pliosauroidea
|families=
|family=Pliosauridae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Liopleurodon
|subgenus=
|species=L. ferox L. pachydeirus L. rossicus
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Liopleurodon''' was a genus of carnivorous, reptilian [[plesiosaurs]]. Pseudoscientists claim that they lived sometime during the Jurassic period.

== Description ==
Liopleurodon was allegedly between 5 and 10 meters long with a large skull and weighed up to 2.5 tons.<ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/jurassintro.html</ref> It was a marine [[reptile]] with a short neck and a carnivorous diet. Its [[fossils]] have been predominantly found in [[France]] and [[England]] and some in [[Russia]].

== Creationist View ==
Due to being sea creatures who could survive in the [[Great Flood]], liopleurodons would not have been on [[Ark|Noah’s Ark]].<ref>http://www.learnthebible.org/q-a-noah's-fish.htm</ref> At some point after the Flood, liopleurodons would have gone extinct.

== Evolutionist View ==
Evolutionist paleobiologists hold that liopleurodons existed during the Jurassic time, which was supposedly between 206 million and 144 million years ago, despite clear evidence that there was no such time period.<ref>http://www.plesiosaur.com/plesiosaurs/liopleurodon.php</ref> They maintain that the species lived during the time of the [[dinosaurs]], which they claim as being before the time of man.

==References==
<references/>

== Bibliography ==
1. [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/jurassintro.html] The Jurassic Period 
2. [http://www.learnthebible.org/q-a-noah's-fish.htm] Learn the Bible: Noah's Fish 
3. [http://www.plesiosaur.com/plesiosaurs/liopleurodon.php] Plesiosuars: Liopleurodons

User:SteveK

2011-05-29T00:16:50Z

SteveK:

Just getting a feel for editing with this software.

This should be in '''bold'''.
This should be in ''italics''.
:This should be indented.
::So should this.
:::And yet again.

*Bullet point?

User:SteveK

2011-05-29T00:06:27Z

SteveK: Created page with "Test... test... test..."

Test... test... test...