Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal gullibility"

Revision as of 01:37, April 27, 2008

Some real problems here.

   * global warming must be caused by man

(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)

   * providing government health care for all will reduce illness

(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)

   * the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are

(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)

   * the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man! 

(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed. AdenJ 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Problems

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples. "taking away guns will prevent gun crime"

This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.

"global warming must be caused by man"

This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it is caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.

"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"

This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.

"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"

Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.

"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are

I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.

"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"

This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?

Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--TomMoore 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Entry confirmed

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And Michael Moore and others make a mint off of them.--Aschlafly 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten. AdenJ 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to atheists. And you've found no error with the statement about global warming in the entry here.--Aschlafly 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like AdenJ

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--TomMoore 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. LyleB 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--TomMoore 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? LyleB 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think Michael Moore does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--Aschlafly 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) LyleB 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know who you're quoting "Doctor", but your name fits the mold of a liberal appearing to have authority that he doesn't really have. See point 3 in liberal style.--Aschlafly 15:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm quoting LyleB who said "I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals." And I'm sorry, Aschlafly.... I simply pointed out that with one simply response, everything I said was left alone. On top of that, I find your use of quotation marks around my name rather patronizing. Would it be appropriate for me to address you as Conservapedia's resident "lawyer?" Of course not, and that's why I would not do such a thing. On top of the matter, I never onced claimed to have any authority other than being a party to a debate in which no debate is actually taking place because the other party claimed victory before the start. And if we want to talk about the so called Liberal Style, how about number 23? You seem to revel in constant mockery Liberals, which translates to anyone you disagree with, no matter what their true opinions. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 15:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, DoctorCB, I'm new here, and don't know much about running debates. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I won't back down from my conservative principles. If there is a consensus that I am in the wrong, I will stop editing this page. LyleB

Not at all Sir, I nevel meant to imply that you do back down from your principles, I had no umbridge with you, and I would never ask that you stop editing with the dictates of your worldview. I would also like to point out that no matter what the popular opnion, there is rarely ever a wrong point in an open minded debate, simply one you don't agree with. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 16:02, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

ah yes, more craaaaaaziness

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though. AdenJ 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Suggestion

"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --RossC 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? LyleB 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Good lordy

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --_transResident Transfan^form! 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberals did. They taught the Piltdown Man in public school for decades.--Aschlafly 21:28, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, key word: did, as in "we don't anymore". Piltdown Man was just a nasty trick perpetrated by someone in the scientific community, and they got caught. Nebraska Man was an honest mistake, as humans and pigs do have similar teeth, and that even was resolved. This article declares that liberals still believe both of them, and this is simply not true. --_transResident Transfan^form! 21:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, ha ha ha, liberals just misled an entire generation of public school students by forcing them to accept the Piltdown Man as true to get high scores on exams. The article doesn't say liberals still believe this untruth, but they surely did for nearly a half century and they never apologized for misleading so many students.--Aschlafly 21:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Let us ignore the Liberals and their Lies

Once again the Liberals ignore their own Liberal gullibility in this talk page. Making full use of their arsenal of Liberal tricks and Liberal tools, the Liberals wish to engage us, to prevent us from spending precious time in building this fine American Encyclopedia. While the Liberal engages in obstructionist tactics, we take it all in and attempt to reason with the Liberal. Our counter argument is based on the premise that a Liberal has rational, justifiable beliefs, but this Liberal logic will not be entertained on this encyclopedia, and if you don't like you can get out. BS BS 16:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

That is the most paranoid, nasty and downright scariest thing I have ever read. Perhaps more meds? Look, BS, I am no liberal but the list as it stands is mostly made up of peoples beliefs, not peoples gullibilty. It is the fundamental flaw of the whole article. Some people actually dont believe in God nor atheists. Liberal Logic? These terms make no sense AdenJ 19:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, we could fill Giant Stadium with liberals who say "I am no liberal." See point 1 in liberal denial. I'm bet you support censorship of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded abortion, and Barack Obama for president. If you don't think that's liberal, then you're inventing your own meaning of the word.--Aschlafly 21:27, 26 April 2008 (EDT)