View source for Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project (A)

== Affirmative Action ==
More thought should be given to the wording of this definition. Reverse Discrimination/Racism is a loaded phrase. 
It either assumes that the person using the phrase is himself a racist, or that a person is discriminating against himself and others like him. I suggest the phrase be removed from the definition.--[[User:JonnS|JonnS]] 16:03, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:"Affirmative Action" is reverse discrimination that is a fact, liberals try to hide it, but that doesn't change the facts. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thing is that what you're saying is that it's only racism if white people do it. You're implying that people of color cannot be racist because they are people of color. 
::Why not try "policies put in place to advance people of color at the expense of white people"? It's a better definition and avoids the implications that many associate with reverse-racism.--[[User:JonnS|JonnS]] 16:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That is just liberal redefinition, exactly what this project is trying to change.  Affirmative action is racist, period. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:40, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== China in the Axis of Evil ==
Is China really in the Axis of Evil ? I thought GWB was only talking about Irak, Iran and North Korea--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:52, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:GWB was only talking about those countries.  But definitions change.  The Axis of Evil are countries bent on Americas destruction including atheistic communist China.  Thanks to Bush Iraq (BTW this is how it is spelled) is off the list, but thanks to Obama other countries are rapidly being added. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 11:38, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A couple questions/errors ==

If I'm wrong about any of these, I'd appreciate if someone elaborated on some of the points. But first, would this count toward the 90/10 rule? I'm not entirely sure; I'm new here and while I have a grasp of the rules, I'm a bit confused as to where the line is for a few of them. Anyway...

Ad Hominem: The Liberal Redefinition confuses me. Yes there are liberals who claim that Ad Hominem is a viable argument instead of a logical fallacy, while others claim that Conservatives are the ones that use the fallacy and they object to them. However I have never seen the same liberal use both simultaneously, as they cancel each other out. No reason to object to an argument if one considers it valid, right? Perhaps the two conflicting Liberal Redefinitions (Valid Argument, and fallacy used by Conservatives) should be listed separately the way standard dictionaries do.

Agnosticism: Why is the redefinition called a "false atheist redefinition" while the others are called "false liberal redefinition"? As far as I can tell it's only this one, too; the entry for Atheism uses "liberal redefinition". Furthermore, if we're stressing that Agnostics and Atheists are significantly different, why don't we use that in other articles? It seems that most of the time agnostics and atheists are grouped together, and this would be bothersome to conservative agnostics such as myself.

Altruism: If Liberals argue that it doesn't exist, then it DOES have a liberal redefinition. I suggest replacing the current one with "something invented by conservatives when they want to sound charitable". Words still have definitions, a "no entry" or "n/a" would only mean that the liberals and conservatives agree on the word's meaning.

American Exceptionalism: I'm not sure, but I don't think believing that the US is a Christian nation falls under this category. That one is significant enough to warrant its own entry. The other two on the list are perfect.

Autocracy: This one doesn't have its own page on CP. It's a redlink, hopefully someone could change that soon. Please don't take me the wrong way here, but I'd like to point out that liberals have never throughout history wanted an autocracy. In the French Revolution and afterward in European history, the liberals staunchly opposed the absolute power the kings had. In that time period, actually, that was the main issue discussed. Nobody likes Autocracy, not liberals or conservatives, and though there are a few exceptions, they don't represent the vast majority of liberals. Most liberals go in the exact opposite direction: anarchy. When the liberals took power in the French Revolution, the result was Chaos and for a while, almost anarchy. Note that anarchy is just as bad as autocracy.

I hope these are addressed soon. --[[User:SpenserL|SpenserL]] 20:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)