Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law"
m (sig) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT) | :The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston. | ||
== Did I do something wrong? == | == Did I do something wrong? == | ||
Revision as of 02:53, June 10, 2009
While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.
- The entry is just as clear as Moore's Law is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about gun control: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
- I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.
Did I do something wrong?
Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --CJHallock 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
- I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted. You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy. Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)