Difference between revisions of "User talk:Zmidponk"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Puellanivis (talk | contribs) (The problem here is a "presumption of absolute truth") |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST) | :::Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::First, I would like to apologize, my behavior was in poor form, and reflected poorly upon CP. To address your question, again, just like Wikipedia CP has a policy of "Ignore All Rules" when it comes to ensuring that the site is kept towards its intended target, a conservative encyclopedia by wiki. Contraversial pages are prone especially to liberals coming in, and asserting their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right, just as well conservatives go to WP, and assert their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right. Both sides presume to be speaking the absolute truth. The difference is where that absolute proof is placed. On the primarily liberal Wikipedia, that absolute proof is with science. However, on Conservapedia, that absolute proof lies with God, and his inspired words from the Bible. If a scientific principle disagrees with the Bible, then it simply can't be true, because the Bible is infallable. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:19, 19 December 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 19:19, December 19, 2007
- *sigh* you are only escalating aggressions between liberals and the conservatives at this site beyond where it already is. Just really, shut up, you're not helping anything, you're only stirring things up, and it makes you look TOTALLY stupid that you refuse to argue outside of your own biased viewpoint. --Puellanivis 00:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- Really? I am 'escalating' aggressions by pointing out that deleting the factual phrase 'Christians believe that this is true', and replacing it with the opiniated one of 'this is definitely true' is in contravention of the site's own rules? Zmidponk 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- Hey, be nice now... After all, it's only a debate. Debates are a) the proper place (if any) for those sort of posts, and b) hardly ever payed attention to anyway! Zmidponk, you're not at fault here. But certainly, Puellanivis, if you see any unhelpful and biased posts in the article talk spaces, feel free to point it out to the user. Feebasfactor 00:36, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- That is true, but he is in violation of the 90/10 rule. Andy wants people to make positive contributions more than just using this site as a soapbox. It would be nice to see some edits. There are many noncontroversial topics that could be augmented or created. Learn together 00:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- Unfortunately, it is the 'controversial' pages that need editing to conform to the rules of this site, and, for the most part, they are locked, so they can't be edited. Which is what I'm pointing out. I can't see how it can be called 'using this site as a soapbox' to ask it to conform to it's own rules. Zmidponk 10:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- First, I would like to apologize, my behavior was in poor form, and reflected poorly upon CP. To address your question, again, just like Wikipedia CP has a policy of "Ignore All Rules" when it comes to ensuring that the site is kept towards its intended target, a conservative encyclopedia by wiki. Contraversial pages are prone especially to liberals coming in, and asserting their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right, just as well conservatives go to WP, and assert their POV with a conviction that they are absolutely right. Both sides presume to be speaking the absolute truth. The difference is where that absolute proof is placed. On the primarily liberal Wikipedia, that absolute proof is with science. However, on Conservapedia, that absolute proof lies with God, and his inspired words from the Bible. If a scientific principle disagrees with the Bible, then it simply can't be true, because the Bible is infallable. --Puellanivis 14:19, 19 December 2007 (EST)