| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal]] behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge: | | Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal]] behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge: |
| | | | |
| | + | # Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself. The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them. |
| | # Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right. | | # Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right. |
| | # Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism. | | # Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism. |
| Line 19: |
Line 20: |
| | # Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument. | | # Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument. |
| | # There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning. | | # There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning. |
| − | # Liberals often express decidely liberal viewpoints as "common usage". | + | # Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage". |
| | | | |
| | Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here. | | Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here. |