Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Coconut

2007-08-30T17:03:47Z

ZackT:

A [[fruit]] grown on coconut trees, largely grown in hot, [[tropical]] areas. It has a thick shell. A falling coconut can often cause serious injury to a person's head, back, and shoulders.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6502774&dopt=Abstract</ref>

Coconuts can also be used to make musical instruments. <ref>http://www.geocities.com/~olelo/o-h-instruments.html</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Fruits]]

Chromatics

2007-08-30T17:01:37Z

ZackT: New page: '''Chromatics''' is the science of Color. Category:Science Category:Physics

'''Chromatics''' is the science of [[Color]].

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T16:55:49Z

ZackT: /* Yea */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence <i>change</i>?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T16:54:07Z

ZackT: /* Nay */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence <i>change</i>?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Oceanography

2007-08-30T16:36:48Z

ZackT: New page: '''Oceanography''' is the study of Oceans.

'''Oceanography''' is the study of [[Ocean]]s.

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T16:35:52Z

ZackT: /* Yea */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]