https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=UnderscorebConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T18:35:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_ideology&diff=631918Liberal ideology2009-02-27T00:04:24Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div>Generally speaking, '''liberal ideology''' in America outlines a system of government which emphasises intervening in the national economy in order to counter market forces. Liberals generally perceive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding public works that could not be adequately supplied through the free market, such as roadbuilding and provision of police forces. Liberals generally advocate increased personal freedoms, however individuals will often dissent on one or more issues, such as [[gun control]], and may even hold multiple conflicting values simultaneously, as seen in the 2005 [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]] which posited freedom of speech versus freedom from persecution.<br />
<br />
The following however are beliefs generally attributed to a [[liberal]] outlook.<br />
<br />
# [[Taxation]] as a means of supplying infrastructure and fostering cultural change<br />
# Income redistribution through progressive taxation<br />
# Aversion to privatization of national assets<br />
# Government control of health care, [[public education]] and social welfare<br />
# Decriminalization of psychoactive drugs as opposed to [[prohibition]]<br />
# Decriminalization of [[prostitution]]<br />
# The advancement of gay rights, including [[same-sex marriage]] and child-rearing<br />
# Implementation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
# [[Political correctness]]<br />
# [[Separation of church and state]]<br />
# Support for [[labor unions]]<br />
# [[Sex education]] in schools, including emphasis on [[contraception]] as well as [[abstinence]]<br />
# Legalization and/or governmental funding for [[abortion]] programs<br />
# Interpretation of the Constitution in a contemporary context (see [[living Constitution]]) <br />
# Upholding of [[First Amendment]] liberties, even in cases of pornography and national security<br />
# Support for [[gun control]], in opposition to the [[Second Amendment]]<br />
# Abolition of the [[death penalty]]<br />
# Penal reforms with an emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment<br />
# Legislation and regulation favoring environmental protection over economic interests<br />
# Support for nuclear disarmament treaties <br />
# Use of dialogue as a means of stopping nuclear [[proliferation]]<br />
# Opposition to ballistic missile defense systems including deployment of defensive weapons in space<br />
# An aversion to interventionist foreign policy (Note: this is often a component of [[paleoconservative]] ideology also)<br />
# Reinstatement of the [[Fairness doctrine]]<br />
# Opposition to restriction of personal freedoms, such as those restrictions imposed under the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_ideology&diff=618578Liberal ideology2009-02-04T02:47:58Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div>Generally speaking, '''liberal ideology''' in America outlines a system of government which emphasises intervening in the national economy in order to counter market forces. Liberals generally perceive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding public works that could not be adequately supplied through the free market, such as roadbuilding and provision of police forces. Liberals generally advocate increased personal freedoms, however individuals will often dissent on one or more issues, such as [[gun control]], and may even hold multiple conflicting values simultaneously, as seen in the 2005 [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]] which posited freedom of speech versus freedom of religion.<br />
<br />
The following however are beliefs generally attributed to a [[liberal]] outlook.<br />
<br />
# [[Taxation]] as a means of supplying infrastructure and fostering cultural change<br />
# Income redistribution through progressive taxation<br />
# Aversion to privatization of national assets<br />
# Government control of health care, [[public education]] and social welfare<br />
# Decriminalization of psychoactive drugs as opposed to [[prohibition]]<br />
# Decriminalization of [[prostitution]]<br />
# The advancement of gay rights, including [[same-sex marriage]] and child-rearing<br />
# Implementation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
# [[Political correctness]]<br />
# [[Separation of church and state]]<br />
# Support for [[labor unions]]<br />
# [[Sex education]] in schools, including emphasis on [[contraception]] as well as [[abstinence]]<br />
# Legalization and/or governmental funding for [[abortion]] programs<br />
# Interpretation of the Constitution in a contemporary context (see [[living Constitution]]) <br />
# Upholding of [[First Amendment]] liberties, even in cases of pornography and national security<br />
# Support for [[gun control]], in opposition to the [[Second Amendment]]<br />
# Abolition of the [[death penalty]]<br />
# Penal reforms with an emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment<br />
# Legislation and regulation favoring environmental protection over economic interests<br />
# Support for nuclear disarmament treaties <br />
# Use of dialogue as a means of stopping nuclear [[proliferation]]<br />
# Opposition to ballistic missile defense systems including deployment of defensive weapons in space<br />
# An aversion to interventionist foreign policy (Note: this is often a component of [[paleoconservative]] ideology also)<br />
# Reinstatement of the [[Fairness doctrine]]<br />
# Opposition to restriction of personal freedoms, such as those restrictions imposed under the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
[[Category:Liberalism]]</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CPalmer&diff=618569User talk:CPalmer2009-02-04T02:41:48Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div><small>Archive: [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2008|2008]]</small><br />
==Award==<br />
I am declaring you an honourary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome WikiGnome] for all your efforts in doing the fiddly things no-one else seems to do. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]</sup> 12:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:Wikignome.png|200px|left]]<br />
<br />
:Thanks! And congratulations to you on your well-deserved promotion - Conservapedia will benefit enormously from your extra powers.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)<br />
::Thank you! Please yell if there is some way I can put these mysterious new powers to use helping you out. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]</sup> 13:28, 4 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Great addition ==<br />
<br />
That's a great addition to [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks - I've been trying to think of a word that would be suitable, but not come up with anything good so far. I'll add it if I do...--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Liberal deceit ==<br />
<br />
That's isn't a category, but a re-direct to [[deceit]]. The category for it, and the like is "Liberalism" which is added by the template "liberalism". --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:47, 12 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Seems logical. Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:57, 13 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== query. ==<br />
<br />
Just on your query "is there a way to list articles where the reflist is missing?" I am not 100% sure what you mean, but can I help? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 09:36, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Just that in articles that have a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag but not a <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tag, you get a big red error message at the bottom of the page. I've come across a few of these by chance, but I was wondering whether there was a more systematic way to find and fix them (I also queried it at [[User Talk:EdBot]]).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:See the bottom of [[Talk:Barack Obama]] for an example of what I mean.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
::(NMHOB) I misread you and fixed that one, then re-read and realised what you meant.... sorry. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Ah, I see what you mean. To be honest I have no idea if there is an "easy" way to find them (like when I had to find all the unprotected pictures). Edbot might be your best bet. Sorry I can not help. :( --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 09:48, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::No problem Mike. For the benefit of anyone else reading this, I'm going to make an example at [[User:CPalmer/Missingrefs]].--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Found a list! [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.conservapedia.com+%22cite+error%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= This] Google search brings up several pages of them. Perhaps someone with some spare time might offer their services?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
:::::Well done! Please copy the link on my talk page. I will help out with them when I get back home from the dojo. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 10:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
::::::I have had a look at a few of those on the Google list and it seems as if it is a bigger problem. Most of those seem to be named reference tags, with no original reference linked to them. Tricky. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]</sup> 13:29, 19 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thanks for the heads-up ==<br />
I'll redo that [[liberal ideology]] edit then. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:41, 3 February 2009 (EST)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=His_Dark_Materials_(novel)&diff=577955His Dark Materials (novel)2008-12-05T00:17:59Z<p>Underscoreb: /* Plot */ general proofing</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modelled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].<br />
<br />
The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Plot== <br />
{{Spoiler}}<br />
<br />
The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]]. <br />
<br />
===The Golden Compass===<br />
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a ''daemon''. Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority".<br />
<br />
The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a young servant at the college in which she lives who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue her explorer father, Lord Asriel, who has been imprisoned in a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an ''alethiometer'', which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (hot-air balloonists), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.<br />
<br />
Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons, preventing the mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed by the Church to be the physical manifestation of [[Original sin]] - unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger and frees the other prisoners in the process.<br />
<br />
She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear-king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.<br />
<br />
===The Subtle Knife===<br />
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.<br />
<br />
Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters. <br />
<br />
This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.<br />
<br />
Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.<br />
<br />
===The Amber Spyglass===<br />
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.<br />
<br />
Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.<br />
<br />
Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.<br />
<br />
Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.<br />
<br />
Will and Lyra are aided by two members of the fairy-like ''Gallivespian'' race in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.<br />
<br />
The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.<br />
<br />
Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.<br />
<br />
Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love, and it is implied, but not clearly stated, that they engage in intercourse. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.<br />
<br />
A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.<br />
<br />
Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They decide that despite their feelings that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].<br />
<br />
==Religious Views==<br />
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.<br />
<br />
===God===<br />
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].<br />
<br />
Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.<br />
<br />
===Jesus===<br />
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:<br />
<br />
''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref><br />
<br />
In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.<br />
<blockquote><br />
<br />
"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
===Christianity===<br />
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref><br />
<br />
===Angels===<br />
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref><br />
<br />
[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref><br />
<br />
===Homosexuality===<br />
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Religious Response==<br />
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref><br />
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref><br />
<br />
==Awards==<br />
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref><br />
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref><br />
*the Astrid Lindgren Award<br />
*the Carnegie Medal<br />
*the Guardian Children's Book Award<br />
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
==See also==<br />
{{Nb Atheism}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Novels]]</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ad_hominem&diff=567265Talk:Ad hominem2008-11-24T04:12:44Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{user GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}<br />
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
: So where'd d'ya get that logic? Let's examine the argument. <br />
<br />
*Gun control favoured by totalitarians is true you say. We'll return to this statement.<br />
<br />
*This is an ad hominem statement. <br />
<br />
*Synthesis = this is an example of a good ad hominem statement. <br />
<br />
Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely.<br />
- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
<br />
Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Last_wordism&diff=567264Talk:Last wordism2008-11-24T04:09:26Z<p>Underscoreb: /* So... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Unsourced nonsense? ==<br />
Where is it shown that liberals are more guilty of 'last wordism' than any other political group? This is a fallacy stated only to degrade liberals. What rubbish.--[[User:Vincentvincent|Vincentvincent]] 10:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I agree. I have deleted that comment from the article. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==What qualifies as X==<br />
Where X is Last Wordism? I see the accusation thrown around at any response unfavourable to Conservatives. Is there a set criteria for the point where it stops being a response and becomes last wordism? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== So... ==<br />
...God used last wordism? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 12:40, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: No, don't think so. Open the mind a bit more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
(edit conflict, this is in reply to JArneal, not Aschlafly)<br />
::God *is* last wordism, don't you think? Seems to me, the quote Bill Cosby used for his mom... "I brought you into this world, and i can damn straight take you out of this world" would apply to God most of all, hum? Kinda hard to have a last word if you no longer exist.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:46, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I guess so. I just thought that it was strange that the article implied that God used last wordism, considering that last wordism has a bad reputation.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 18:55, 19 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::It's not exactly encyclopaedic, either. Would anyone object to removing that particular homily? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:What_is_the_real_love%3F&diff=535354Debate:What is the real love?2008-10-13T04:17:40Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div>Well, I have talked with a couple of different people on the net, there seems to be quite different meanings on what love really is. Also, I must say that I thnk there are two different forms of love, the first one being the one a man feels to a woman or oppisite and the love that Jesus talked about (which is the one I am interested to talk about).<br />
Can somebody give a clear and honest explanation on what true love is, without fearing to be critizised for their view, I am open to ideas. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 18:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not much of a biologist or neuroscientist but from what I understand all feelings of love and affection are caused by the chemical (or hormone :S) oxytocin. This is responbsible for the love between mother and child, lovers in a relationship, other family love, friendship and in some cases, lust. What causes this hormone (or chemical!) to be released into the brain is something I am not certain of. But that's pretty much my limited understanding of the matter. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 13:51, 17 August 2008<br />
<br />
::Well, that's more or less the funny way our religion/christianity book told us about the subject of love, that it sure is sad to express something as fundamental as love as simply some reaction caused by our hormones and that that's the only thing it is, a chemical recation, (as some would claim all of human evolution is, only a simple reaction of chaos and coincidence).<br />
::To me I feel that the cause for our love toward each other (both couple realations and unselfish love) is a product of a much deeper level, that in the plane of our spiruality, perhaps just as our physical world there exists other worlds which are connected to us, and which work on all our other senses. :) <br />
::Even though I'm not religious, I think that simply explaining all of our feelings and creative powers as a result of a chemical coincidence (which of course the whole Darwin idea is based upon) is like creating something out of nothing. Impossible ;) --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry i took so long to reply. *ahem*. I see where you're coming from, and I understand you're view because it was one that I subscribed to for a while. But now I find it funny that you feel the need to invoke a whole new level of alternate planes of existence just to explain something that is already explained in the world of biology and chemistry. Especially when there is no scientific evidence for those planes. But hey, its a free world (mostly). I just feel that it devalues the amazing abilities of the human brain, especially because that is a world that is far more worthy of our awe and respect. Oh and I'm not going to rise to your last sentence cos I know there's no point. Nice try though :P [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 23:22, 23 August 2008<br />
:::: Bolly, man, I know what you're saying but you do come off sounding a little bit smug. Don't be trollin', yo. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:17, 13 October 2008 (EDT)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_ideology&diff=535352Liberal ideology2008-10-13T04:12:15Z<p>Underscoreb: Spelling, deleted unencyclopaedic epithets ("party first, country second")</p>
<hr />
<div>Generally speaking, '''liberal ideology''' in America outlines a system of government which emphasises increased personal freedoms while intervening in the national economy in order to counter market forces. Liberals generally perceive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding public works that could not be adequately supplied through the free market, such as roadbuilding and provision of police forces.<br />
<br />
The following are beliefs generally attributed to a [[liberal]] outlook. However, it should be noted that individuals will often dissent on one or more issues.<br />
<br />
# [[Taxation]] as a means of supplying infrastructure and fostering cultural change<br />
# Income redistribution through progressive taxation<br />
# Aversion to privatization of national assets<br />
# Government control of health care, [[public education]] and social welfare<br />
# Decriminalization of psychoactive drugs as opposed to [[prohibition]]<br />
# Decriminalization of [[prostitution]]<br />
# The advancement of gay rights, including [[same-sex marriage]] and child-rearing<br />
# Implementation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
# [[Political correctness]]<br />
# [[Separation of church and state]]<br />
# Support for [[labor unions]]<br />
# [[Sex education]] in schools, including emphasis on [[contraception]] as well as [[abstinence]]<br />
# Legalization and/or governmental funding for [[abortion]] programs<br />
# Interpretation of the Constitution in a contemporary context (see [[living Constitution]]) <br />
# Upholding of [[First Amendment]] liberties, even in cases of pornography and national security<br />
# Support for [[gun control]], in opposition to the [[Second Amendment]]<br />
# Abolition of the [[death penalty]]<br />
# Penal reforms with an emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment<br />
# Legislation and regulation favoring environmental protection over economic interests<br />
# Support for nuclear disarmament treaties <br />
# Use of dialogue as a means of stopping nuclear proliferation<br />
# Opposition to ballistic missile defense systems including deployment of defensive weapons in space<br />
# An aversion to interventionist foreign policy (Note: this is often a component of [[paleoconservative]] ideology also)<br />
# Reinstatement of the [[Fairness doctrine]]<br />
# Opposition to restriction of personal freedoms, such as those restrictions imposed under the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=535348Talk:Liberal2008-10-13T04:05:46Z<p>Underscoreb: /* Recent changes */</p>
<hr />
<div><br /><br />
<br />
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]<br />
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br /><br />
<!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== --><br />
Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"<br />
<br />
At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.<br />
<br />
Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.<br />
<br />
This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.<br />
<br />
This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.<br />
<br />
In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth. <br />
:: I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
Of course there are confused people. Christians who are political liberals will always be found to have small or very large and obvious, cracks in their theology. Currently, it is not possible to integrate Christianity into the Democratic political platform. If one is called into politics, or into working for a political cause or simply trying to vote with integrity, a Christian cannot support todays liberalism. A Democrat who claims to be Christian will inevitably be found to lack theological integrity and will be revealed as a liberal through and through.<br />
Let me make it clear; liberals liberate and if the moral disintigration of the United States corrupts the government toward oppression, then todays conservatives will become liberators (politcal liberals), revolutionaries in the name of truth!<br />
<br />
<br />
If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.<br />
<br />
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Westboro Baptist Church?<br />
<br />
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?<br />
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).<br />
<br />
::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Different definitions of Liberal ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.<br />
<br />
That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pathetic Article ==<br />
<br />
The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.<br />
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.<br />
<br />
== Liberal Failures ==<br />
<br />
[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].<br />
<br />
Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:<br />
<br />
*Economy/Taxation<br />
*Health Care<br />
*Law/Criminal Justice<br />
*Environment<br />
*Education<br />
*Immigration<br />
*Culture<br />
*National Security<br />
<br />
Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref><br />
<br> <br><br />
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:<br />
<br />
* Forced School Busing<br />
* Welfare<br />
* Luxury Tax<br />
* Alternative Minimum Tax<br />
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia<br />
* Free Love<br />
* Drugs<br />
<br />
"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Denial of gender differences by liberals==<br />
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"<br />
<br />
Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==<br />
<br />
I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm<br />
<br />
The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Westboro Baptist Church ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called ''conservative'', but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH ''is'' rather conservative. It's fixed now.<br />
<br />
== Huh? ==<br />
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Liberal ==<br />
<br />
The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.<br />
<br />
Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.<br />
<br />
I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).<br />
<br />
Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== about liberals ==<br />
<br />
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.<br />
<br />
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.<br />
<br />
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.<br />
<br />
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.<br />
<br />
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.<br />
<br />
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.<br />
<br />
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.<br />
<br />
8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.<br />
<br />
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.<br />
<br />
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.<br />
<br />
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.<br />
<br />
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.<br />
<br />
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.<br />
<br />
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.<br />
<br />
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.<br />
<br />
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.<br />
<br />
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.<br />
<br />
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.<br />
<br />
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United<br />
States.<br />
<br />
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.<br />
<br />
22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".<br />
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Dem damn dirty libruls!!!<br />
<br />
== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==<br />
<br />
Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of course there are<br />
<br />
*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic<br />
<br />
*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.<br />
<br />
*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade<br />
<br />
*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.<br />
<br />
*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.<br />
<br />
*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,<br />
<br />
*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.<br />
<br />
*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.<br />
<br />
*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.<br />
<br />
*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"<br />
<br />
Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]<br />
<br />
** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more<br />
<br />
::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported <br />
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]<br />
<br />
:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: How is Machiavelli in anyway a liberal? I believe his writings stand outside any political scale, and were written to do so. Also, liberal does not mean progress. On this site the 'modern meaning of liberal' is just about anything the admin want it to be, from Facism, to pornographic extroverts. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:50 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Citation Request ==<br />
<br />
It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==<br />
<br />
I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml link on Oxford's site] showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama professor profile] of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reverts ==<br />
<br />
Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."<br />
<br />
Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals. <br />
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society. <br />
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included. <br />
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less <u>obfuscation</u>, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong. <br />
<br />
*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals. <br />
--<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', <u>and not apologizing for either statement when asked to</u>; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Affront ==<br />
<br />
As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]<br />
<br />
: You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.<br />
:: Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?<br />
:: Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.<br />
<br />
:::It's amusing, given that Liberalism and Facisim are actually two absolute opposites on a political scale. In fact, Conserservatism is far closer to Facism than Liberalism is, so really this is just another of hilarious assertion.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Typo ==<br />
Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== WBC is a "Liberal Organization"? ==<br />
<br />
I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is a ''liberal organization''? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.<br />
<br />
A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a ''liberal organization''? This smells like [[political identification bias]] to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it ''must'' be liberal! --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary<br />
mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil<br />
rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken<br />
liberalism even justifies a new appellation... '''hyperliberal''', anyone? <br />
--[[User:Jamesmason|Jamesmason]] 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Additional Liberal Organizations ==<br />
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}<br />
<br />
:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Founding Fathers were liberal==<br />
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.<br />
<br />
Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...<br />
<br />
What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)<br />
<br />
==List at top==<br />
<br />
The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"? <br />
<br />
Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clean up article==<br />
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Recent changes ==<br />
<br />
In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.<br />
<br />
Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=505960Talk:Deceit2008-08-28T00:46:23Z<p>Underscoreb: /* "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<!-- <br />
============================================================================<br />
Place no content above this line! --><br />
<br />
==Examples== <br />
<br />
Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.<br />
<br />
:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br><br />
<br>a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
<br>b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
<br>c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br><br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.<br />
<br />
:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.<br />
<br />
:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.<br />
<br />
:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Another Example ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Catalog or informative article? ==<br />
<br />
Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public Schools==<br />
<br />
I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?<br />
<br />
:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:<br />
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]<br />
::::::::::or<br />
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.<br />
<br />
: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.<br />
<br />
: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.<br />
<br />
: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.<br />
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?<br />
<br />
::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].<br />
<br />
After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]]</font></sup> 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Delete==<br />
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]<br />
<br />
*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==<br />
<br />
Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.<br />
<br />
Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Heading edit==<br />
<br />
Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads: <br />
<br />
"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."<br />
<br />
I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.<br />
<br />
::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== How we differ from Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}<br />
<br />
The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".<br />
<br />
This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."<br />
<br />
Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.<br />
<br />
I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.<br />
<br />
Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.<br />
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.<br />
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.<br />
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.<br />
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.<br />
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".<br />
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?<br />
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"<br />
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?<br />
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.<br />
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:<br />
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}<br />
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.<br />
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007 <br />
(EDT)<br />
==Read My Lips==<br />
<br />
How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==<br />
<br />
It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:<br />
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894<br />
:William Garstang, 1922<br />
:Gavin de Beer, 1958<br />
:William Ballard, 1976<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977<br />
:Richard Elinson, 1987<br />
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987<br />
:Michael Richardson, 1995<br />
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]<br />
<br />
So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Broken source link==<br />
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==<br />
<br />
As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pathetic Rubbish ==<br />
<br />
There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}<br />
<br />
It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.<br />
<br />
:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.<br />
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy,<br />
<br />
My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Liberals and Deceit==<br />
<br />
The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Piltdown Man ==<br />
<br />
Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows:<br /><br />
<br />
The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man <font color=red>was declared</font> to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> <font color=red>given</font> a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> <font color=red>Yet this fraud maintained currency</font> for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> <font color=red> as well as</font> in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref><br />
<br />
: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion explained ==<br />
<br />
The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.<br />
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Enron... Nixon... ==<br />
<br />
I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.<br />
<br />
Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''<font color="#CC0000">α</font><font color="#A0A0A0">m</font><font color="#0099FF">ε</font><font color="#003399">σ</font>''' <small>[[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]]</small> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:<br />
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement<br />
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief<br />
<br />
I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord. <br />
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Umm, right ==<br />
<br />
This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".<br />
<br />
If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.<br />
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Scooter Libby== <br />
<br />
This example has been suggested. please discuss.<br />
<br />
# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.<br />
<br />
::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Examples of deceit==<br />
<br />
I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.<br />
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.<br />
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it. <br />
<br />
::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==<br />
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==<br />
<br />
I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].<br />
<br />
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.<br />
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Boris Johnson==<br />
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Al Gore ==<br />
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Richard Nixon==<br />
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==M Scott Peck==<br />
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==<br />
<br />
What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around. <br />
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Public school deceit==<br />
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. <sub>your apathetic neighborhood public schooler</sub> [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Inherit the Wind==<br />
<br />
LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's". <br />
<br />
::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==John Edwards==<br />
<br />
Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Changes ==<br />
<br />
Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).<br />
<br />
Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.<br />
<br />
I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).<br />
<br />
Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying. <br />
<br />
I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you. <br />
<br />
Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Underscoreb&diff=499959User talk:Underscoreb2008-08-15T23:33:07Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Welcome|sig=<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)}}<br />
<br />
hey score--[[User:Thedude|Thedude]] 21:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Removing edits==<br />
If I or any other admin within Conservapedia removes a troll/vandal from the site, or removes comments made by that troll, you have no business whatsoever to change it back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:43, 13 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Hi Karajou, I apologise for the breach of etiquette. I'm glad you decided to let Expectopatronum's comment stand though, and if I have any further reservations I'll be sure to check in with the relevant admin first. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:33, 15 August 2008 (EDT)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=492972Talk:Liberal2008-07-26T22:28:55Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div><br /><br />
<br />
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]<br />
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br /><br />
<!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== --><br />
Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"<br />
<br />
At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.<br />
<br />
Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.<br />
<br />
This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.<br />
<br />
This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.<br />
<br />
In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth. <br />
:: I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.<br />
<br />
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Westboro Baptist Church?<br />
<br />
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?<br />
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).<br />
<br />
::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Different definitions of Liberal ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.<br />
<br />
That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Pathetic Article ==<br />
<br />
The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.<br />
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.<br />
<br />
== Liberal Failures ==<br />
<br />
[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].<br />
<br />
Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:<br />
<br />
*Economy/Taxation<br />
*Health Care<br />
*Law/Criminal Justice<br />
*Environment<br />
*Education<br />
*Immigration<br />
*Culture<br />
*National Security<br />
<br />
Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref><br />
<br> <br><br />
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:<br />
<br />
* Forced School Busing<br />
* Welfare<br />
* Luxury Tax<br />
* Alternative Minimum Tax<br />
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia<br />
* Free Love<br />
* Drugs<br />
<br />
"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Denial of gender differences by liberals==<br />
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"<br />
<br />
Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==<br />
<br />
I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm<br />
<br />
The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Westboro Baptist Church ==<br />
<br />
I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called ''conservative'', but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH ''is'' rather conservative. It's fixed now.<br />
<br />
== Huh? ==<br />
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Liberal ==<br />
<br />
The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.<br />
<br />
Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.<br />
<br />
I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).<br />
<br />
Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== about liberals ==<br />
<br />
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.<br />
<br />
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.<br />
<br />
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.<br />
<br />
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.<br />
<br />
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.<br />
<br />
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.<br />
<br />
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.<br />
<br />
8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.<br />
<br />
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.<br />
<br />
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.<br />
<br />
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.<br />
<br />
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.<br />
<br />
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.<br />
<br />
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.<br />
<br />
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.<br />
<br />
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.<br />
<br />
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.<br />
<br />
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.<br />
<br />
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United<br />
States.<br />
<br />
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.<br />
<br />
22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".<br />
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==<br />
<br />
Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of course there are<br />
<br />
*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic<br />
<br />
*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.<br />
<br />
*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade<br />
<br />
*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.<br />
<br />
*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.<br />
<br />
*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,<br />
<br />
*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.<br />
<br />
*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.<br />
<br />
*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.<br />
<br />
*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"<br />
<br />
Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]<br />
<br />
** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more<br />
<br />
::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported <br />
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]<br />
<br />
:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Citation Request ==<br />
<br />
It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==<br />
<br />
I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml link on Oxford's site] showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama professor profile] of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reverts ==<br />
<br />
Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."<br />
<br />
Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals. <br />
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society. <br />
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included. <br />
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less <u>obfuscation</u>, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong. <br />
<br />
*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals. <br />
--<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', <u>and not apologizing for either statement when asked to</u>; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Affront ==<br />
<br />
As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]<br />
<br />
: You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.<br />
:: Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?<br />
:: Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.<br />
<br />
== Typo ==<br />
Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== WBC is a "Liberal Organization"? ==<br />
<br />
I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is a ''liberal organization''? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.<br />
<br />
A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a ''liberal organization''? This smells like [[political identification bias]] to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it ''must'' be liberal! --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary<br />
mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil<br />
rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken<br />
liberalism even justifies a new appellation... '''hyperliberal''', anyone? <br />
--[[User:Jamesmason|Jamesmason]] 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Additional Liberal Organizations ==<br />
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}<br />
<br />
:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_ideology&diff=492270Liberal ideology2008-07-24T00:53:50Z<p>Underscoreb: </p>
<hr />
<div>Generally speaking, '''liberal ideology''' in America outlines a system of government which emphasises increased personal freedoms while intervening in the national economy in order to counter market forces. Liberals generally perceive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding public works that could not be adequately supplied through the free market, such as roadbuilding and provision of police forces.<br />
<br />
The following are beliefs generally attributed to a [[liberal]] outlook. However it should be noted that individuals will often dissent on one or more issues; and some beliefs are also shared by a proportion of [[conservative]]s (such as [[separation of church and state]] and [[same-sex marriage]]).<br />
<br />
# [[Taxation]] as a means of supplying infrastructure<br />
# Income redistribution through progressive taxation<br />
# Aversion to privatization of national assets<br />
# Government involvement in health care, [[public education]] and social welfare<br />
# Decriminalization of psychoactive drugs as opposed to [[prohibition]]<br />
# Decriminalization of [[prostitution]]<br />
# The advancement of gay rights, including [[same-sex marriage]] and child-rearing<br />
# Implementation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
# [[Political correctness]]<br />
# [[Separation of church and state]]<br />
# Support for [[labor unions]]<br />
# [[Sex education]] in schools, including emphasis on [[contraception]] as well as [[abstinence]]<br />
# Legalization and/or governmental funding for [[abortion]] programs<br />
# Interpretation of the Constitution in a contemporary context (see [[living Constitution]]) <br />
# Upholding of [[First Amendment]] liberties<br />
# Support for [[gun control]], in opposition to the [[Second Amendment]]<br />
# Abolition of the [[death penalty]]<br />
# Penal reforms with an emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment<br />
# Legislation and regulation to protect the environment<br />
# Support for nuclear disarmament treaties <br />
# Opposition to nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile defense systems<br />
# An aversion to interventionist foreign policy (Note: this is often a component of [[paleoconservative]] ideology also)<br />
# Reinstatement of the [[Fairness doctrine]]<br />
# Opposition to restriction of personal freedoms, such as those imposed under the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_ideology&diff=492268Liberal ideology2008-07-24T00:38:39Z<p>Underscoreb: "tougher prohibition" is kind of redundant; "permissive European laws" have been incorporated into decriminalization.</p>
<hr />
<div>Generally speaking, '''liberal ideology''' in America outlines a system of government which emphasises increased personal freedoms while intervening in the national economy in order to counter market forces. Liberals generally perceive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding public works that could not be adequately supplied through the free market, such as roadbuilding and provision of police forces.<br />
<br />
The following are beliefs generally attributed to a [[liberal]] outlook. However it should be noted that individuals will often dissent on one or more issues; and some beliefs are also shared by a proportion of [[conservative]]s (such as [[separation of church and state]] and [[same-sex marriage]]).<br />
<br />
# [[Taxation]] as a means of supplying infrastructure<br />
# Income redistribution through progressive taxation<br />
# Aversion to privatization of national assets<br />
# Government involvement in health care, [[public education]] and social welfare<br />
# Decriminalization of psychoactive drugs as opposed to [[prohibition]]<br />
# Decriminalization of [[prostitution]]<br />
# The advancement of gay rights, including [[same-sex marriage]] and child-rearing<br />
# Implementation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
# [[Political correctness]]<br />
# [[Separation of church and state]]<br />
# Support for [[labor unions]]<br />
# [[Sex education]] in schools, including emphasis on [[contraception]] as well as [[abstinence]]<br />
# Legalization and/or governmental funding for [[abortion]] programs<br />
# Interpretation of the Constitution in a contemporary context (see [[living Constitution]]) <br />
# Upholding of [[First Amendment]] liberties<br />
# Support for [[gun control]], in opposition to the [[Second Amendment]]<br />
# Abolition of the [[death penalty]]<br />
# Penal reforms with an emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment<br />
# Legislation and regulation to protect the environment<br />
# Support for nuclear disarmament treaties <br />
# An aversion to interventionist foreign policy (note this is often a conservative ideology as well)<br />
# Reinstatement of the [[Fairness doctrine]]<br />
# Opposition to restriction of personal freedoms, such as those imposed under the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
# Opposition to placing defensive weapons in space<br />
<br />
{{liberalism}}<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:The_Golden_Compass&diff=449815Talk:The Golden Compass2008-05-08T22:03:40Z<p>Underscoreb: /* Learntogether */</p>
<hr />
<div>The movie was a disappointment to atheists because it toned down the anti-religious message of the book. See [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4169/ Frank Furedi] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:They don't have to worry. The director made it clear that he's only doing that with the first movie to get in an young audience, then he's going to unleash the full anti-God diatribe. I feel sorry for those parents who believe they are allowing their children to watch a regular fun kids film. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:47, 10 December 2007 (EST)<br />
::i don't want to seem like of those liberals that always has to get a word in edgewise (even though i ''am'' one of those liberals) but isn't it up to the parents to research the things their children watch instead of letting them jump into something blindly? I'm curious as to what people think.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 17:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:::That's absurd. On that note, I don't remember the death of any god being a major plotpoint. One of the gay angels, yes. Death of a god? Not so much. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure 'God' died, Barikada. There's a whole scene about an incredibly withered, ancient angel slumped on a palanquin. It's just that in that scene, Pullman never mentions Him by name. I actually thought it was quite a clever literary technique - dethroning Him in figurative terms and all that. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Pullman himself discusses his views and why he wrote the books, and it's not just to strike a blow against authoritarianism; this article will not be morphed to say as much. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Learntogether==<br />
Please, let's not start an edit war. I understand you want to revert my edits[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Golden_Compass&diff=448450&oldid=448385]], but can we discuss them here first? Young adult fiction is generally written for readers between 12 and 18 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_literature]. I know we're not big on citing Wikipedia here, but it's not like literary demographics are a controversial subject...<br />
As for Pullman's comments, fair enough - although he says it's an attack on any system in which control is enforced through faith. Perhaps instead of reverting it though, you could simply edit that specific section and add content. So with that in mind, do you think we could revert the reversion of the reversion? :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You'll have to convince me that the information you presented was heading towards the direction of truth. The movie DVD has been advertised on Nick, hardly a hotbed for the 12 to 18 year olds. If you've seen the displays with the cute white bears that they add with the movie, that's hardly 12 to 18 either now is it?<br />
<br />
:A more appropriate question would be what was lacking from the article as written that needed to be expanded that would still follow what was actually occurring? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: The Golden Compass is a novel aimed at 12-18 year olds that has recently been adapted into a film. Perhaps we could compromise on creating a separate subheading discussing the film version (which I agree was aimed at a much broader demographic)?<br />
<br />
::I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's my understanding that we accept genuine submissions and then improve on them, not reject them because they don't meet our standards for comprehensiveness. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Underscoreb asked me to offer some advice here. It appears from the edit comments and the discussion here that the main or only issue is over the target age range, which make me wonder why all the rest was reverted as well. Assuming the facts are correct (e.g. that it has also been published as "Northern Lights"), and ignoring the question of the target age, then I generally prefer Underscoreb's version as providing more (and useful) information.<br />
::: As for the target age range, I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with the book or movie to express a preference, but do wonder if there is much point in being as specific as "12 to 18", even if ''nominally'' that is true. Would it be okay to say "younger readers", or is that too vague?<br />
::: Or is it really necessary to say much about the target range? Parents reading this will be more interested in the content than the target age (i.e. they will likely already have decided whether or not the book or movie suits their children as far as age is concerned).<br />
::: Despite Underscoreb's claim that "young adult" means "12-18 year olds", I would think that most would expect the term to mean from 18 to somewhere in the 20s. Whilst I wouldn't have thought that Wikipedia was particularly biased on this sort of thing, the referenced article does actually seem to contain a fair amount of opinion (e.g. "...it displayed a truer, darker side of young adult life because it was written by a young adult."), and has very few references backing up the content. So I wonder if one can accept what Wikipedia says here, but even if it is correct, I think the term is misleading, as I don't think most would understand it that way.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Thanks Philip, I appreciate your objectivity. I've made the appropriate edits in what I think is a compromise. By all means feel free to make additional edits, guys, but let's act in good faith and stop with the reversions. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::I already added in appropriate additions. This will not be turned into a "he said she said" with some people think its just an attack against authoritarianism or comparing it to a classic like Paradise Lost. It's not Paradise Lost. In Paradise Found, obtained by killing God or any vestiges of Him. We will not water this down to ignore that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I enter this discussion in response to Ub's request and after seeing this edit:<br />
<br />
:''While some interpret it as a blatant attack on Christianity, others argue that it represents a triumph over authoritarianism''<br />
<br />
First of all, I don't see why we have to maintain a stance of neutrality. We are not Wikipedia, and we're not journalists. The author said he's killing God and that ought to settle it. Moreover, even a liberal source like ''[[Newsweek]]'' wrote that "...no one over four feet tall could mistake the Magisterium for anything but an oppressive theocracy."<br />
<br />
The author is obviously portraying the Christian Church in the worst possible light. He accuses it of [[authoritarianism]], and so it makes sense for Conservatives to respond to this. <br />
<br />
Certainly most churches have a dogma and a top-down governance which cannot be altered democratically. But since people (at least in the English-speaking West) can "vote with their feet" (i.e., join another church) then the label of [[theocracy]] is misapplied. The world in which a theocratic agency kidnaps and tortures children might have described the [[Spanish Inquisition]] centuries ago, but all of Christianity denounces this as an aberration. The closest thing in modern history would be Communism and Nazism.<br />
<br />
It's ludicrous to think we have to be "neutral" on questions like:<br />
#Is Pullman talking about the Judeo-Christian God?<br />
#Is Pullman accusing the Christian Church of being authoritarian and/or theocratic?<br />
<br />
Let's concentrate on issues like the age range of the target audience. I haven't heard of teenagers or preteens reading the book, because it's not as fun as Harry Potter. But I'm open about that. I'm not open about whether the book is anti-religious. On that score, Pullman couldn't be more blatant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thankyou, Ed - I appreciate your comments, especially when considered alongside Philip's. Unfortunately Learntogether has threatened me with a 5-year ban, which is disappointing (and surprising, given that his userpage tells me he "is pleased for people of all viewpoints who honestly contribute"). He has nonetheless requested sources to support my edits, which is fair enough.<br />
<br />
:Do you read? Let's make this abundantly clear, I will block you for good if you do that one more time. You claimed, when you went crying to Philip, that you had ALREADY SOURCED YOUR WORK when I reverted it. I called you for lying. Don't twist that to I'm threatening you unless you source your work. We are talking about your LYING, that you had already sourced your work. Do you get it now? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Learntogether, I was in the process of adding sources when I found that you had already reverted the edits I had made thus far. I didn't want to inflame the situation, so I thought I'd let it lie. In any case, what do you think of the sources I've cited below? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:03, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
But I maintain that while he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. From his official website[http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=12]:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Some of the articles and talks I've written are to do with the subject of religion, which I think is a very interesting one. The religious impulse – which includes the sense of awe and mystery we feel when we look at the universe, the urge to find a meaning and a purpose in our lives, our sense of moral kinship with other human beings – is part of being human, and I value it. I'd be a damn fool not to.<br />
<br />
But organised religion is quite another thing. The trouble is that all too often in human history, churches and priesthoods have set themselves up to rule people's lives in the name of some invisible god (and they're all invisible, because they don't exist) – and done terrible damage. In the name of their god, they have burned, hanged, tortured, maimed, robbed, violated, and enslaved millions of their fellow-creatures, and done so with the happy conviction that they were doing the will of God, and they would go to Heaven for it.<br />
<br />
That is the religion I hate, and I'm happy to be known as its enemy.</blockquote><br />
<br />
He's also said in an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury that Jesus doesn't feature in Pullman's Church because it represents a religion that has lost its core values[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml].<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:18, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::And incidentally, perhaps Dr. Fox's comments could be moved to the 'Criticisms' section, since that's what they are. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:26, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== My edit ==<br />
<br />
Can someone reinstate my edit please? I can't edit the page.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 11:07, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Honestly this is ridiculous, this is a slapdash article made of up quotes compiled by people who only seem to have second-hand knowledge of the topic.[[User:PashaSuez|PashaSuez]] 11:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I have also just come back to this article intending to do a bit more tidying up (e.g., to correct a number of grammatical errors and attempt to organise the material, which at present is scattered unhelpfully). It's a bit annoying to find it locked! If you have a problem with the edits of one editor, surely the right approach is to engage in a discussion, not peremptorily to lock the article. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::For the time being please supply the edits that you feel would be helpful/improvements. Your previous edit was an improvement and I'm guessing other alterations you would wish to make will be as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:56, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, for a start, why is the comment by Quinn Fox given star billing and not listed in an appropriate place alongside the other commentaries? It's surely better to describe the book/film before you start pulling it to pieces. I won't bother to list the numerous typos for you - you can find them yourself or unlock the article so that I can fix them for you. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It appears to be an anti-religious book and film - masquerading as a perfectly fine adventure tale like [[The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]. <br />
<br />
The Narnia books are intentionally (and '''openly''') pro-Christian. They are filled with Christian values, and the kingly character of [[Aslan]] is unmistably a Christ figure. You'd have to be well under 8 years old to miss the "[[crucifixion]]" parallels of an innocent being dying "for" a "traitor".<br />
<br />
Compass is just as anti-Christian as the C.S. Lewis tale, but its defenders are in denial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)</div>Underscorebhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:The_Golden_Compass&diff=449799Talk:The Golden Compass2008-05-08T21:26:09Z<p>Underscoreb: /* Learntogether */</p>
<hr />
<div>The movie was a disappointment to atheists because it toned down the anti-religious message of the book. See [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4169/ Frank Furedi] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:They don't have to worry. The director made it clear that he's only doing that with the first movie to get in an young audience, then he's going to unleash the full anti-God diatribe. I feel sorry for those parents who believe they are allowing their children to watch a regular fun kids film. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:47, 10 December 2007 (EST)<br />
::i don't want to seem like of those liberals that always has to get a word in edgewise (even though i ''am'' one of those liberals) but isn't it up to the parents to research the things their children watch instead of letting them jump into something blindly? I'm curious as to what people think.--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 17:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:::That's absurd. On that note, I don't remember the death of any god being a major plotpoint. One of the gay angels, yes. Death of a god? Not so much. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure 'God' died, Barikada. There's a whole scene about an incredibly withered, ancient angel slumped on a palanquin. It's just that in that scene, Pullman never mentions Him by name. I actually thought it was quite a clever literary technique - dethroning Him in figurative terms and all that. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Pullman himself discusses his views and why he wrote the books, and it's not just to strike a blow against authoritarianism; this article will not be morphed to say as much. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Learntogether==<br />
Please, let's not start an edit war. I understand you want to revert my edits[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Golden_Compass&diff=448450&oldid=448385]], but can we discuss them here first? Young adult fiction is generally written for readers between 12 and 18 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_literature]. I know we're not big on citing Wikipedia here, but it's not like literary demographics are a controversial subject...<br />
As for Pullman's comments, fair enough - although he says it's an attack on any system in which control is enforced through faith. Perhaps instead of reverting it though, you could simply edit that specific section and add content. So with that in mind, do you think we could revert the reversion of the reversion? :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You'll have to convince me that the information you presented was heading towards the direction of truth. The movie DVD has been advertised on Nick, hardly a hotbed for the 12 to 18 year olds. If you've seen the displays with the cute white bears that they add with the movie, that's hardly 12 to 18 either now is it?<br />
<br />
:A more appropriate question would be what was lacking from the article as written that needed to be expanded that would still follow what was actually occurring? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: The Golden Compass is a novel aimed at 12-18 year olds that has recently been adapted into a film. Perhaps we could compromise on creating a separate subheading discussing the film version (which I agree was aimed at a much broader demographic)?<br />
<br />
::I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's my understanding that we accept genuine submissions and then improve on them, not reject them because they don't meet our standards for comprehensiveness. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Underscoreb asked me to offer some advice here. It appears from the edit comments and the discussion here that the main or only issue is over the target age range, which make me wonder why all the rest was reverted as well. Assuming the facts are correct (e.g. that it has also been published as "Northern Lights"), and ignoring the question of the target age, then I generally prefer Underscoreb's version as providing more (and useful) information.<br />
::: As for the target age range, I'm not sufficiently familiar enough with the book or movie to express a preference, but do wonder if there is much point in being as specific as "12 to 18", even if ''nominally'' that is true. Would it be okay to say "younger readers", or is that too vague?<br />
::: Or is it really necessary to say much about the target range? Parents reading this will be more interested in the content than the target age (i.e. they will likely already have decided whether or not the book or movie suits their children as far as age is concerned).<br />
::: Despite Underscoreb's claim that "young adult" means "12-18 year olds", I would think that most would expect the term to mean from