Talk:Liberal denial

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. Maestro 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. Darkmind1970 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

See? You help illustrate our point!--Aschlafly 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. Barikada 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. Darkmind1970 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of liberal denial.--Aschlafly 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. Barikada 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. Darkmind1970 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.CodyH 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

Not Fair!

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an Ann Coulter book DLerner

Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. Barikada 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. Barikada 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?

DLerner

The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. Barikada 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Abortions and breast cancer

Is it plainly true that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --GDewey 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Your understanding is from liberal denials. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--Aschlafly 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? Barikada 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is plainly true that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --GDewey 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --GDewey 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Folks, go somewhere else to engage in liberal denials. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--Aschlafly 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). Absentismens 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--Aschlafly 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). Absentismens 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow last wordism for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--Aschlafly 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? Absentismens 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? SSchultz 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of breast cancer, than conversely abstinence increases the risk of breast cancer. Feebasfactor 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the abstinence page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? HMayo 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about liberal denial. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--Aschlafly 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to breast cancer risk, what is the difference between aborting several babies or simply remaining abstinent throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. Feebasfactor 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as liberals try. Study our abortion entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--CarolineMilton 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --CarolineMilton 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--Aschlafly 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

Do you have a reputable medical citation for that claim? --CarolineMilton 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on abortion has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--Aschlafly 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

OK then. Let's recap.

1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --CarolineMilton 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Suggestion for Item 11

That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. Barikada 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

#9 Reversion?

So, I'm wondering why my change to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in their favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--RossC 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--Aschlafly 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Fair enough...--RossC 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)