User talk:Bdor25

Unblocked

I disagree with your lone edit, but that shouldn't be grounds for a permaban, and I'm changing the block to 10 minutes. You said what you believed, and the block reflected poorly on us. I'm going to do what I can to fix that. --Joshua Zambrano 23:56, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I notice that what I said remains deleted. I don't care about being blocked or not. I came to ask a question and have it answered: why do you constantly call him a liberal even though we have no proof of his political affiliation? I have seen no evidence from sources, even conservative sources, of his political affiliation. All we know is that he is an insane college student. I get the feeling that it is little more than a smear campaign against the opposing party, but if Andy has a good source for the information, I would very much love to hear it. I am disappointed that the knee-jerk response is to delete the criticism and ban me. It seems of censorship to me. --Bdor25 00:33, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Fair enough, I'll take a look, just a second. --Joshua Zambrano 01:09, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Well, I re-added it but DamianJohn reverted it. I guess they don't want it discussed on the main page. I'll discuss the concerns with you here however, which I'd imagine should be alright. --Joshua Zambrano 01:26, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Actually, that might have been because I messed up the edit and edited the page's old version, accidentally removing newer material. (doh) Probably just best to discuss here anyway for now though to be on the safe side. If Andy or others want to reply here I'm sure they can do so. --Joshua Zambrano 01:29, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

The Crossed Line

Hello, Andy and friends. A while ago, I arrived at Conservapedia a staunch conservative Christian. However, after examining the arguments, I rethought my place in the world and came to a more liberal, atheist worldview. Since then, I watched from afar, believing that you were wrong, but still deserved to have your arguments duly considered. However, I came back to Conservapedia after noticing something very disconcerting that I felt must be brought up. It has to do with the the recent tragedy in Aurora, in which twelve people died in the premiere of the Dark Knight Rises.

I first heard about the tragedy from a liberal blog. The blogger and people in the comments were very sorrowful, to the point where one man toyed with the idea of starting a charity for the survivors of the shooting (something I could easily get behind). However, the conservative response, in my opinion, has been absolutely disgusting. Pundits and politicians alike lined up to give their opinions on the shooting, claiming that the shooting was a result of 'atheist values' (which is weird, because atheists don't have fixed, objective values, that's sort of the point), and that liberals were somehow responsible for the massacre. One article even had the gall to claim that it was a government hoax, an assertion backed up by no evidence whatsoever (and before you say anything, yes, I did read the article in its entirety). The point is, instead of grieving, many conservatives are using the tragedy to attack political opponents!

Naturally, I went to Conservapedia to see your take on the situation. "They may be misguided," I thought, "But Andy isn't a political jackal. He wouldn't try to capitalize on the deaths of twelve people." (No offense, by the way) But woe and behold, you did exactly as I hoped you would not, using the tragedy to attack liberals, atheists, and others, all the while quoting the very same articles I read and despised.

So, Andy and sysops, I have come to call you out for this. For supposedly moral people, you seem to have absolutely no shame in twisting the deaths of a dozen people, including a six year old girl, to support your own political agenda. How dare you blame the millions of perfectly sane and nice liberals and atheists, including me, on the horrible actions of a single lunatic. How dare you assert that we are somehow responsible for their deaths, despite having absolutely no connection to the shooter whatsoever. Have you no sense of honor or dignity? How low are you willing to go? --Bdor25 12:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Bdor25, whether the shooter was a liberal, I don't know. It's not something I've personally looked into that deeply yet. However, I will say that I find concerning governments which are atheistic and persecute Christianity and other religions like China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, and Cuba. So I do think liberalism and atheism can be blamed for certain wrongs in the world. With that said, not all atheists or liberals are represented as such, just like not all Muslims are violent. Such a sweeping stereotype will inevitably be wrong. So like I said, I haven't yet formed an opinion one way or the other yet on the shooting - I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. But I'm not opposed to the idea that liberalism and atheism do cause problems worldwide.

Look, I encounter many atheists who criticize Christianity of certain evils, or more broadly criticize religion. Do you likewise criticize atheists and liberals for attacking Christianity because of Westboro or other examples? Because it's the same thing occurring, just from the other side. Put the shoe on the opposite foot, and I could ask, "How dare you blame the millions of perfectly sane and nice [Christians and conservatives], including me, on the horrible actions of a single lunatic. How dare you assert that we are somehow responsible for their deaths, despite having absolutely no connection to the shooter whatsoever. Have you no sense of honor or dignity? How low are you willing to go?" My point is that the opposite accusations are leveled by atheists and liberals against Christianity non-stop. Why is it you take offense to them being leveled back in return? --Joshua Zambrano 01:19, 26 July 2012 (EDT)