Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia"

Revision as of 13:40, May 7, 2007

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The Deceit article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that Mockery is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. Trashbat 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --Colest 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--Sm355 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. DanH 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to be.--Olly 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Procreation, Fornication, and Bisexuality. --Hojimachong^talk 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to Bisexuality ; ) Trashbat 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

That wasn't me, it was Ed ;-). --Hojimachong^talk 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. Erasmus 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. Czolgolz 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Sir...

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must at least consider the possibility that this is because it deserves it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary^[1] zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

1. ↑ kuhn-trair-ee - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary

--Robledo 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I put what I've put at another place on CP, with some additions:

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like? After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. In the words of Barack Obama: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them.

And continuing: This should be required reading for all new contributors here. Let all the newcomers, of whatever political persuation, decide whether they really want to be a part of this project. Sterile 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I can't imagine the content page genuinely offending anyone. But offense or not, behavior can and should be scientifically studied. We have hundreds of journals publishing papers on behavior about every aspect of society. What's wrong with studying liberal behavior? I wouldn't object to a study of conservative behavior, styles of arguing, conduct on a website, etc. In fact, I'd welcome it, because we can all learn from it and improve.--Aschlafly 21:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Since this is a scientific study, I’d like to know a bit about your methodology.

How did you identify which users were liberal? What was your classification system? How many posts did a user have to make before being included in the study? Did you compare liberal users to conservative users? How many users had to exhibit a behavior before it was classified as a liberal behavior? What percentage of all users did your study include?--Reginod 09:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

• If it looks, walks like a duck, and quacks like one, I know it is a duck. Same for Conservative's and Liberal's. It is a pretty common sense deal, no? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 09:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I’m going to go with “no”. There is a much larger political spectrum than liberal or conservative, and, aside from the problems inherent in trying to confine a multiplicity of views to a bipolar spectrum, people can and do hide their true political leanings. --Reginod 09:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Who said anything about criticizing anyone? I'm just saying that it's obvious to me that the management has already judged the editors on this site, not by their edits, but by their political persuations. I'm embarrased for Conservapedia that this essay even exists. If you can't see the problem with this essay, then you are blinded by your own views. (And sure, go ahead, block me. At this point I don't know why any person--conservative or liberal--would truly want to continue to edit here, if the management is this biased. Conservapedia is doomed if it isolates its volunteer editors.) Sterile 08:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The 6-times criticism

Well, I would say it's because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. However, I won't start an argument. --Liπus the Turbohacker^{(contact me)} 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)