SkipCaptcha
259
edits
Changes
mLine 3:
Line 3: + + + Line 8:
Line 11: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 769:
Line 789: − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Number 6: Added references tag
============================================================================
============================================================================
Place no content above this line! -->
Place no content above this line! -->
==Obama==
'There are claims that president Barack Obama is a Muslim. If true, this would be a massive deception of the American public. See the evidence on his biography page.' Having looked at his 'Religious Affliations' section on his page, I can't find anywhere him suggesting he's not a Muslim. Now, I'm not going to make a judgement on what his religion is, but being a Muslim isn't deceit. If he did claim to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu etc, then I think that should be made clearer. User: TedMoult
==Examples==
==Examples==
Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
: I agree. Deceit is pretty easy to understand. The example of Eve in the Garden of Eden might serve as a good example, but it's clear that this list exists more to bash Liberals than provide examples. It's gratuitous and patronizing. I'd support removing it as well. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 10:12, 26 November 2009 (EST)
:: Deceit may be "pretty easy to understand," but [[liberals]] deny it and not everyone recognizes it. This list is a primer so that people are not as fooled by it. It's remarkable that anyone would object to exposing deceit and warning people about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:40, 26 November 2009 (EST)
:: I don't think he was objecting to exposing deceit, he was just pointing out that compiling a huge page of it makes it seem as if this website is just a huge, rambling, attack on liberals as opposed to an informative and useful resource. I fully agree that exposing the deceit is important, but it would be better done by moving the information from this page to all the pages that are specifically affected--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 10:52, 26 November 2009 (EST)
:::There's no logic to the objection. It obviously is useful to see a collection of various examples of [[deceit]] in one place. The real objection is probably not that this entry is ineffective, but that it is highly effective in educating visitors about liberal deceit. Don't worry, liberals can still feign surprise when a new example is exposed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 26 November 2009 (EST)
::: I see your point, but I still think it looks, as [[User: Emorrisey|EMorrissey]] said, "gratuitous and patronizing." If you think having the information on the wiki is important, maybe we should consider moving the examples to a page entitled [[Liberal Deceit]] or something similar.--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 22:31, 26 November 2009 (EST)
::::Obviously most deceit is liberal in nature, but that doesn't mean a qualification should be placed on this entry. If you can find non-liberal deceit of the same order and magnitude as the examples here, then we'd include it. Non-liberal deceit is rare and you may not be able to find any.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 26 November 2009 (EST)
:::: I wasn't talking about the type of the deceit so much as the quantity; having twenty examples seems like overkill. As for the variety of deceit, I'm obviously not going to argue that liberals aren't more likely to be deceitful than your average person. However, its not like they have a monopoly on deceit either, and being deceitful isn't a prerequisite for being a liberal. You can also just be misguided. As for non-liberal deceit, there are plenty of examples. What about watergate?--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 19:38, 28 November 2009 (EST)
::::: The nature of politics is inherently deceitful. Watergate was similar in many ways to what many other politicians have done, and will continue to do. It does not rise to the level of these examples, which are not about winning one election but are clear-cut examples of extreme deceit, often for its own sake. Also, by the way, many of the players in the Watergate scandal were liberal, even though Republican.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 28 November 2009 (EST)
::::: Ah. Well I'm not going to argue with that, but for the purpose of the article the magnitude of deceit seems unimportant; watergate still provides as much of an example as the ones shown in the article. Also, I still believe that the list needs to be shortened for the same reasons I mentioned above.--[[User:JacobX|JacobX]] 20:03, 28 November 2009 (EST)
==10 Commandments==
==10 Commandments==
::Thanks for replying. Do you want to answer the question about Michael Moore and Cafferty examples? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:27, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for replying. Do you want to answer the question about Michael Moore and Cafferty examples? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:27, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::*Maybe. <!-- Was giving you a chance to WIGO my first answer. --> I'm still trying to figure out why this is such an issue to a student in Austria, as well as the 2010 Census, unless they are merely trolling. Moore is a propagandist, a socialist one, who uses lies to distort other's opinions, or the quality of Cuban health care. that makes him deceitful. Cafferty, did you look at the links and do your own research? Or did you just visit the Daily Kos? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:47, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::*Maybe. I'm still trying to figure out why this is such an issue to a student in Austria, as well as the 2010 Census, unless they are merely trolling. Moore is a propagandist, a socialist one, who uses lies to distort other's opinions, or the quality of Cuban health care. that makes him deceitful. Cafferty, did you look at the links and do your own research? Or did you just visit the Daily Kos? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:47, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I read all of the links in the article<!-- and FYI, I never read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or Drudge for that matter. -->. Did you read the beginning of my post? I'm completely in agreement that Michael Moore uses deceit and poor logic in his filmmaking. But by definition, the example in this article is of hypocrisy, not deceit.
:::I read all of the links in the article<!-- and FYI, I never read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or Drudge for that matter. -->. Did you read the beginning of my post? I'm completely in agreement that Michael Moore uses deceit and poor logic in his filmmaking. But by definition, the example in this article is of hypocrisy, not deceit.
:::As for the Cafferty, how is reading only mail critical of Limbaugh an example of deceit? Like I said in the original post, it's definitely [[liberal bias]], [[liberal style]], and general nasty behavior, but doesn't match the other examples.
:::As for the Cafferty, how is reading only mail critical of Limbaugh an example of deceit? Like I said in the original post, it's definitely [[liberal bias]], [[liberal style]], and general nasty behavior, but doesn't match the other examples.
<!--BTW, your recent edit to the article added a mistake. See http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/plurals.htm: "When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the Grays, etc.When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, we form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes, the Rodriguezes. Do not form a family name plural by using an apostrophe; that device is reserved for creating possessive forms."--> [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
<!--BTW, your recent edit to the article added a mistake. See http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/plurals.htm: "When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the Grays, etc.When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, we form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes, the Rodriguezes. Do not form a family name plural by using an apostrophe; that device is reserved for creating possessive forms."-->
[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::::Perhaps the best solution, then, is to suggest some better examples of deceit by Moore and Cafferty. If they do a better job of illustrating how dishonest they are, I'm sure nobody will object to adding them to the article. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:12, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::::Perhaps the best solution, then, is to suggest some better examples of deceit by Moore and Cafferty. If they do a better job of illustrating how dishonest they are, I'm sure nobody will object to adding them to the article. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:12, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
Yes, Ben, that is indeed what I am used to, rather than a picky debate over what constitutes a better reference, if an editor has a problem, find a better one! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
== Eden: The serpent and God ==
The serpent doesn't actually deceive Eve. In Genesis 3:22 God acknowledges that "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil". Compare that to what the serpent claims in Genesis 3:5: "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". God even speaks of himself as "us", corresponding to the serpent's "gods". If anything, there's deceit by God: He wrongly claims eating the fruit is lethal (Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.") in order to prevent man becoming god-like. (I'm aware of the claim that God refers to the separation of Adam from God, but that seems to be a matter of interpretation; God doesn't say "you will be exiled", as he easily could have said. Anyway, exile is not a direct consequence of eating the fruit, it's a preventative measure by God that he need not have taken.) [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 22:11, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:Excellent point, but the serpent did overstate the reward from eating the fruit, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::I see no overstatement by the serpent. The serpent's prediction precisely matches God's later assessment. Whether this "becoming as gods" actually corresponds to the common view of God is debatable, of course, but since the serpent qualifies its "be as gods" statement, man probably was to become as gods in this regard only - without obtaining omniscience or omnipotence. Anyway, I find the reference to John a little dubious when Genesis is the primary source for events in Eden. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 23:38, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:::You make interesting and provocative points. I have an open-mind about it, and will consider further. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 27 November 2009 (EST)
==Muslim Obama==
"There are claims that president [[Barack Obama]] is a Muslim. If true, this would be a massive deceit of the American public. See the evidence on his biography page."
If we have to qualify one of our example's with the words "if true," does it really deserve to be in this section? Such examples are hardly illustrative. Can we stick to examples that are generally agreed upon as true?--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 20:18, 28 November 2009 (EST)
:Unfortunately, many examples of deceit are so widespread that there is no consensus that they ARE deceit. For example, Conservapedia recognizes global warming as deception, but the mainstream media, and a significant portion of the American public, don't realize it. Similarly, just because some people think Obama is not a muslim, doesn't mean we should cave to their liberal pressure. Given the evidence for Obama being a muslim, I think it certainly belongs here. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:25, 28 November 2009 (EST)
::Jacob,
::To take your example of global warming, yes, I agree that global warming is a gigantic deception. However, the purpose of this page is not to expose specific examples of deception. We can do that quite effectively on our global-warming page. The purpose of this page is to give the reader a clear idea of what deception is. It is therefore counter-productive to give examples of deception that the reader will quite possibly/probably disagree with. The same applies to Obama. We have quite thoroughly alleged that he is a Muslim on our Obama page. However, that ought not be our purpose on this page. Our purpose is to illustrate the concept of deceit, and that is best done with widely recognized examples. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 20:35, 28 November 2009 (EST)
:::You make an excellent point. I think the "if true" qualifier should cover this. If a user reads this page who believes Obama is a Christian, surely they can still agree that if he was a muslim claiming to be Christian, this would constitute an enormous deceit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:38, 28 November 2009 (EST)
::::While what you say is true, doesn't the "if true" qualifier make this statement meaningless. I could say "There are those who believe the country is run by aliens. If true, this would be a huge example of deception." Well....duh. I just said something that is true, but it was a meaningless statement. --[[User:PAZda09|PAZda09]] 21:25, 3 March 2010 (EST)
==Slander==
I think examples 17 and 18 should be moved our [[Slander]] page. They are poor examples of deceit, and good examples of slander. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 20:50, 12 December 2009 (EST)
== Deceit of public schools ==
Mr. Schlafly made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&diff=prev&oldid=731939 this] comment the other day. Might this be a good example of liberal deceit? The liberals in charge of the public schools deceive Americans by pretending that they are educating students, when in fact they are pushing a liberal agenda. Maybe someone else can word it more eloquently that I could? [[User:TobyG|TobyG]] 13:49, 15 December 2009 (EST)
== Reversion explained ==
I appreciate the liberal desire to find some comparable conservative examples, but any additions must be '''comparable''' in significance to the existing ones, and not simply a "tit for tat." There is no reason to expect perfect symmetry by liberals and conservatives with respect to deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 27 December 2009 (EST)
== Number 6 ==
Website cited for Biden example (www.famousplagiarists.com) does not exist. [[User:ArthurFredrickson|ArthurFredrickson]] 20:50, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
:I found a link - wasn't hard. What's with all red coding though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
<references/>