Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

YES

For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist.

For example, the articles on autoeroticism and oral sex have been deleted and prevented from being created. Now, I can understand that conservatives find oral sex immoral, indecent, disgusting, sinful or whatever, but why not simply explain that in the article about oral sex, and perhaps support it with other facts, such as the spread of STDs through oral sex? Why pretend that oral sex and autoeroticism, something practised by billions of people, does not exist?

Some may argue that oral sex is simply not important enough to be included here. But this is not the case. In America it is a topic of heated debate, and many Americans have been politically persecuted for practising it, some as recently as 3 years ago.

And if you want to "protect" children who read this site, you don't NEED to describe the graphic details of oral sex, all you need to do is talk about the controversies surrounding it.

In my opinion, simply ignoring a topic that you dislike is a blinkered attitude. Pretending that something doesn't exist is not going to make it go away. Harebrained 08:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Not devoting webpages to a subject is not a case of pretending a subject does not exist. As your ilk are so eager to point out, if somebody wants to know about a subject, they are only a couple of clicks away on the internet. We choose not to have pages about them. As for "protecting" children - what is wrong with that? The alternative is the unecessarily early sexualization of children, which many liberals and homosexuals seem happy to push. Why do you think a child should be educated about fellatio? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)