'''Profanity''', also known as '''bad language''', '''swearing''' or '''cursing''' (or ''cussing'') is the usage of [[word]]s which are considered to be offensive or abusive. Its use is taboo in polite or formal environments, and more commonly accepted in informal contexts. Profanity is particularly common in traditionally masculine settings. This has led to the introduction of phrases such as "to curse like a sailor".

Profane words tend to involve certain near-universal subjects: filth, particularly human waste; forbidden sexual practices; and [[blasphemy|blasphemous]] treatment of the sacred. However, it is the words themselves, and not the concepts they represent, which cause offense, as there are numerous words to signify any taboo subject, with varying levels of acceptability. Among profane words, there exist at least two levels of offensiveness. There are also, in many languages including English, euphemisms such as ''darn'', ''drat'', ''gosh'', ''frap'' and so on.

Over time, the perceived offensiveness of some expressions can change. One example is the expression ''by Jove'', an archaic contraction of ''by Jehovah'', which sounds delicately quaint to modern listeners, but which was once among the most profane phrases in the [[English|English language]].

[[Category:Language]]

Pride

2008-08-31T19:33:44Z

Trinity123:

Pride is a lofty view of one's self or one's own. Pride often manifests itself as a high opinion of one's nation (national pride), ethnicity (ethnic pride), or appearance and abilities (vanity). Pride is considered a negative attribute by most major world religions, but some philosophies consider it positive. The opposite of pride is humility.

Judaism

Judaism, using Pride in the sense of hubris or arrogance, denounces it - the phrase "Pride goes before a fall" is a paraphrase of a passage from the book of Proverbs, in the Old Testament. Many more verses of the Tanakh/Old Testament speak of Pride and arrogance. "Blessed is that man that makes the Lord his trust, and looks not to the proud, nor to those that turn aside to lies." (Psalm 40:4) "Talk no more exceeding proudly, nor let arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed." (I Sam. 2:3)

Christianity

In Christianity, Pride (also Vanity or arrogance) is the essentially competitive and excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God, or the worth which God sees in others;[citation needed] for example: "In his Pride the wicked does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God." (Psalm 10:4) Pride the greatest of the seven deadly sins. (Pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust)

* According to Sebastien Michaelis, humans are seduced by Pride by the great demon Belial, who is also known as The Lord of Arrogance.

* Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that "inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin." In this he followed St. Gregory.

The well-known English maxim, "Pride goes before a fall," is itself an adaptation of Proverbs 16:18.[3]

* Pride is listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, alternately named Superbia.
Islam

In Islam, Pride is forbidden as well. According to a narration from Muhammad, he said: "He in whose heart there is as much as an atom of arrogance will not enter paradise," and a man remarked: "A man likes his garment to be beautiful and his sandals to be beautiful." Then Muhammad replied: "God, Most High, is beautiful and likes beauty; arrogance is disdaining what is true and despising people." (Sahih Muslim).

Buddhism

In Buddhism, Pride is seen as illogical as no one person or thing can be better or worse than something or someone else.

Hinduism

In Hinduism, Ravana, an evil king who was killed by Rama, avatar of Vishnu, exhibited the sins of Pride and Lust.

Taoism

In Taoism, according to the Tao Te Ching, Pride and Greed are human errors.

[[Category:Sin]]

2008-06-03T11:37:08Z

Trinity123: /* Reply to all above */

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Come on ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:Whilst I do not consider myself a liberal, and am very much a Christian, I have observed rather the opposite, that it is conservatives, especially Christians, seem the more likely to make approval of their value system a condition of the relationship. This seems also what one might rationally expect; conservatism is by its nature intolerant of difference. This doesn't make it "wrong", as many of the things liberals tolerate I thoroughly disapprove of, but this is an irrelvance.

Whilst I am aware of the reasons why I should not do so, I make a certain degree of agreement with my value system a requirement of friendship. This does not mean that I don't endeavour to show love for people who do not, but it does prohibit me from meeting with them on a purely casual basis. And to a greater or lesser degree I imagine it's true of everyone.[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]]

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

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

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

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

==Cites==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on [[user:PhoenixWright|my user page]], in this [[tabula rasa]] environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. [[User:kitefox|kitefox]]

As would I. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ann Coulter]] :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Misleading terminology==

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Where is the evidence? ==

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

:'''Conservatives''' often make approval of [[conservative]] values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[conservative]] values.

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

:In contrast, [[liberals]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship.

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:We know [[Liberals]] all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your [[Liberal tricks]]. Reflect and improve! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a ''reflection'' of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ostracize a republican ==

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: No one is claiming anything about ''all liberals''. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Untrue, and I ought to block you for saying it - but I'm enjoying the delicious irony here too much. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that ''Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about ''all conservatives''. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:" But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"

:Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove ''nothing whatever'' about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Since it's been a while now... ==

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the ''imprimatur'' of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: ''Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.'' and it would be just as "true". You know, [[Michael Moore]]'s book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in [[Ann Coulter]]'s "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to '''never''' concede '''anything''' to a liberal. Just some food for thought. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Don't fall into the tit for tat trap. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Huh? I was just saying that it should be an essay like Phoenix did, what do you mean tit-for-tat trap? [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", '''yes'''. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, '''no'''. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their '''friends''', (after all, that is the title of the article).
[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== No evidence for this article period ==

Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case '''whatsoever''': ''They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.'' Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.

Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.

Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at [[Bob Jones University]] you don't think they'd get flack?!

For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in '''university's''', it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from '''opinion'''journal.com), doesn't provide any proof for '''this''' article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.
::Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is '''opinion'''. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals '''''often''''' make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")
::I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the point is that liberals all too frequently '''do try''' to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see [[conditional love]]; compare [[unconditional love]].

:::Unless your are trying to censor [[Liberals and friendship|this opinion]], you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).

:::To participate as an equal in this project, you must regularly provide trustworthy information. This includes information that casts doubt on "conservative opinion". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Aug19.html original source], is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them '''opinions'''. I refer you to [[Deliberate ignorance]]: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how many of them there are. There is still no evidence. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nonsense. Observations certainly are evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::'''Evidence of what?''' ''First'', unsystematically collected anecdotal observations are subject to all sorts of biases and do not allow you to draw any conclusions about generalities. ''Second'', any evidence you have presented in the article could just as easily be evidence that '''conservatives have a tendency to whine and complain when they feel dumped or let down'''. There is certainly evidence (of a sort) there, but it does not support the conclusions, which remain unsubstantiated (and hurtful) opinion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:02, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== The summary ==

This seems to sum up to the entirely non-controversial, "shocking" observation that people with different ideological beliefs often disagree, and sometimes tensions flare. ...is there evidence that conservatives ''don't'' do that?-[[User:HankS|HankS]] 16:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Closing Arguments ==

The premise of this article is “Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of '''friendship'''. My previous arguments haven’t been on the premise, I have instead focused on the '''references''' which to the best of my understanding, do not bolster Andy’s case. They do (perhaps) show bias from liberals in other areas, but they don’t show any '''friendships''' lost due to politics.

Now, it’s a '''fact''' that many friendships have been diminished, damaged, strained, weakened, tested, or even destroyed because of politics, religion, associations with various characters, marriage, and yes, because of voting. I’m sure that there are many stories out there that will bolster Andy’s argument.

'''However''', the conclusion/Parthian shot of the article states: “In contrast, conservatives '''virtually never''' require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.” It’s '''impossible''' to prove this; it’s a classic example of [http://www.safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/negativeproof/ negative proof,] or “proving a negative”, a '''logical fallacy'''.

But just for fun, I’ll bring some sources to show that might '''disprove''' it:
*[http://liberal-debutante.com/religion/why-religion-must-change-or-die.html Katie Kish writes:] “Not only have I lost friends over being an atheist - I’ve lost jobs, been told I can’t listen to some musicians because they’re “Godly” and I’m not...”
*[http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/article.html Bruce Bartlett] was fired from his job at the National Center for Policy Analysis, because he spoke ill of President Bush.

I can go on, but it won’t prove anything.

In conclusion: To your surprise I agree with your premise! Yes! People have falling out’s over politics/religion. My problem is with your '''closing'''. There is no way to '''prove''' that Conservatives aren’t just as guilty; and to say “prove it” is a logical fallacy. (We see X but we don’t see Y, obviously Y doesn’t exist etc.)

I’ll conclude with a prayer: Let us hope that through discussion on real issues, we can work together to make the world a better place for all of us. Amen

God bless.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 05:45, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:It proves that you are unclear about the distinction between employment and friendship ([[Bruce Bartlett]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::Pray do tell what is your view of the distinction? BTW, please don't put comments in the middle of my posts. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I think you have put your finger on something useful here, DLerner. We can allow the premise, but the conclusion does not follow from it. Equally, of course, we could put it the other way around, and accept the "conclusion" but not the premise. The closing remark may well in fact be true: I for one am quite happy to believe that indeed "conservatives virtually never require acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship". What I object to, though, are the words "In contrast" - because it is surely equally true that '''''liberals''' virtually never require acceptance of '''liberal''' principles as a condition of friendship''. All the examples of liberals rejecting a friend because of his/her conservative values will do nothing to alter the fact that in general, people don't behave that badly. And finding lots of examples of conservatives dumping on their liberal friends would likewise do nothing to disprove the general truth that conservatives are on the whole pretty good to their friends. I have no problem with a Conservapedia article which displays a list of stories of liberals being mean to their friends (or any other list of alleged misdemeanors by liberals - take your pick from a large number of articles). That's all perfectly fine, and indeed, collecting such stuff seems to be the main function of Conservapedia these days. What I object to, however, is the pretense that collecting anecdotes like this can prove anything about "liberal" behavior in general. That is simply nonsense. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Closing argument needed==

Frankly this shouldn't even be a debate. If this is an encyclopedia this tabloid rubbish shouldn't be here. If it is a blog it belongs. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 21:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Drivel==
The arguments in this article are weak as Hercules is strong. Essentially it is a long list of quotes and anecdotes. This is the weakest class of evidence after pure hearsay. For all I know, for every story of conservatives being "persecuted", there might be 314 stories of conservatives being given the
red carpet. You should use proper evidence or delete this article. I personally nominate this article for deletion, on the grounds of being so ludicrous that RаtionalWiki couldn't better it, even if they tried. Please bear in mind that the burden of proof is on the author, as one user forgot during the discussion on Professor Values. [[User:Innsmouth|Innsmouth]] 16:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Delete? ==

Andy, there's been alot of talk about deleting this page, so why don't put up a delete nomination, I'd do it but I'd probably be blocked again. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It won't be deleted and likely won't be moved. I'd say focus your efforts on improving the article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You people keep saying that as if this article had any value to begin with. Listen to me, this article is bunk, rubbish, trash, nonsense, drivel, propagandist and a whole lot of other adjectives. The only way for it to be improved is it's nomination for deletion. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

And when I nominate it Andy of course removes the [[Conservapedia:AFD Liberals_and_friendship|nomination,]] Well I should have expected as much. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:41, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Anecdotes, anecdotes and MORE anecdotes. ==

Andy, I believe you're a lawyer, would any court accept this to "convict" Libs of being mean-hearted SOG's? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

This is a thoroughly supported and well-referenced entry, and your insistence on deleting this information smacks of [[liberal bias]]. This isn't [[Wikipedia]] where [[liberal]] editors censor and delete informative entries. And we don't want to be like [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

DLerner, please do yourself a favor and become open-minded about how militant [[liberals]] sometimes behave, and how they try to intimidate and ostracize conservatives. Just observe some of the vandals here, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

[[Wikipedia]] gets a lot more vandals then here you know that. You're right Andy "militant [[liberals]] along with just about everybody in the world sometimes behave" poorly. This site is guilty itself of intimidating and ostracizing liberals who come here to help. I am one of those liberals.

P.S. According to your last note, shouldn't this article be called "Militant Liberals and friendship"?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:53, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You're right about one thing: Wikipedia does get hit by vandals ... who are often smearing entries about conservatives. There are no conservative vandals on Wikipedia or here.

:[[Liberal denial]] is rampant. I guess we have to add liberal denial of ostracizing conservatives to the growing list. Do yourself and your cause a favor by admitting to the excesses on your side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

There are nuts on all sides except the indifferent. Yes, sometimes conservatives are ostracized by liberals, but look at <big>'''title'''</big> of the damn article. Which article have you shown that proves liberals will throw out '''<big>friends'''</big> because of politics?

And pray to do tell why can't we discuss deleting it, I haven't challenged all your "liberals-like-barbecuing-babies-using-the-fire-of-a-burnt-flag-during-a-gay-wedding" articles, just this one. Do the AMERICAN thing, put it up for a vote.

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

<sigh> didn't I tell you that ''In contrast, [[conservatives]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship'' is a [[logical fallacy]], you can't prove a negative!!!!

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

When liberals want us to delete an article, that's a great reason to '''keep it''' and make it even better! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:17, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

*LOL! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reagan ==

''Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.''

Aha, so if RR had liberal friends, all conservatives must have them... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:... and presumably, by the same token, those liberals (O'Neil and Kennedy) had at least one conservative friend (Reagan). Or did they behave in a typical liberal manner and reject his friendship? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:06, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::They were pretending. See [[Liberal deceit]]. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::My dear, you have to take all of those "Liberal ______" with a grain, nay a spoon of salt, Andy's thoughts are unfortunatly not reality. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy's project, Andy's word is gospel. My dear. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::No "Good news" in it. Well if he wants he can change it back, let's not have an edit war here. Oh, and it takes big spheres to say that somebody faked a friendship without anything to back it up. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:53, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Fine, then, let's get him involved. I'm sure he's got nothing better to do. You fail to see the point. Still. My dear (condescending a**hole). -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok kids, if you can't play nice I'm going to have to turn this car around. Please stop edit warring, and stop calling each other names. If you do not follow the rules of civility, both of you will be blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed blocked "Doctor" Sandstone, but for the edit comment, not the one above. I have a feeling that might change. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:32, 9 April 2008 (EDT)