Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cptstubing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:So, if there is a conservative claim and a liberal claim, Conservapedia will side with the conservative position, as the liberal position is compromised per se. That's pretty much a textbook example of [[bias]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:17, 26 February 2015 (EST) | :So, if there is a conservative claim and a liberal claim, Conservapedia will side with the conservative position, as the liberal position is compromised per se. That's pretty much a textbook example of [[bias]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:17, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ||
::Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ::Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ||
| + | :::Bias on itself isn't problematic. It just seems to be superfluous to ask for sources for the obvious. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:39, 27 February 2015 (EST) | ||
== Throwing down the gauntlet == | == Throwing down the gauntlet == | ||
Cptstubing, please point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism]] and [[homosexuality]] articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:19, 26 February 2015 (EST) | Cptstubing, please point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism]] and [[homosexuality]] articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:19, 26 February 2015 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 11:39, February 27, 2015
And your sources to prove we have a bias? Plus, your sources that proves the liberal side of the fence is all lollipops and cuddly animals. I would love to see them. Karajou 05:48, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- It seems to be absurd to claim that Conservapedia has no bias! Karajou, you yourself wrote about the Conservapedia Bible Project:
- "It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. Karajou 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT) "
- So, if there is a conservative claim and a liberal claim, Conservapedia will side with the conservative position, as the liberal position is compromised per se. That's pretty much a textbook example of bias. --AugustO 07:17, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? Karajou 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST)
- Bias on itself isn't problematic. It just seems to be superfluous to ask for sources for the obvious. --AugustO 06:39, 27 February 2015 (EST)
- Yes, we will side with the conservative position (read "bias") because we will not side with liars or lunatics who have a severe bias towards liberalism. Do you have a problem with that? Karajou 09:36, 26 February 2015 (EST)
Throwing down the gauntlet
Cptstubing, please point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia atheism and homosexuality articles. Conservative 10:19, 26 February 2015 (EST)