Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias (view source)
Revision as of 21:09, August 5, 2016
, 21:09, August 5, 2016→Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead.: Good suggestion. I'll make the change.
::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike
== Liberal style? ==
Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:
2. Pretending to know more than he does.
example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.
5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.
example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.
7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.
example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".
9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.
example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.
15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.
example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.
So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:
:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs
: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?
Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
==Its just funny==
I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Of course you would call it hypocritical. That's because you refuse to accept the authority that Conservatives based their comments on, which the vast majority of their comments rely on. Conservatives use authoritative sources such as the Constitution or the Bible, where liberals say things based on nothing but their opinion as the authority. That is the difference.
== Crocoite - Civility? ==
I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].
Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
== Athiests? ==
Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
== Protected ==
I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:no, athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Dude, it's spelled "atheists" ("i" after "e", except after "c" ...). And, by the way, most [[liberals]] do deny that the God created the world in six days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::"Science" proved that wrong, Andy. <sub>pun intended</sub> +_+ <sub>always tired</sub> [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)
== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!
"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"
"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.
And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)
== Sooo.... ==
Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)
== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==
Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)
== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==
as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)
==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
== Deletion suggestion ==
That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)
==Controversial==
[[Iconoclastic controversy]], [[Global Warming Controversy]], [[Creation-evolution controversy]], [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]], [[Abortion controversy]], [[Easter controversy]], [[Intelligent design controversy]], [[Video game controversy]]. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
== Grammer ==
shouldn't the first letter of every sentence be capitalized and I was wondering if those external links could be changed to referenced??? Just trying to help. respond to me on my talk page. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 17:37, 28 December 2008 (EST)
== Missing ref tags ==
I would make the change myself if I could; Point #8: "Silence Speaks Volume" has a few links next to it that do not have ref tags. Point #31 has ref tags, why not point #8? Thanks to whoever fixes this. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
== Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead. ==
Concerning: "#unjustified claims of expertise, authority or knowledge"
A better word instead of "unjustified" is "unsubstantiated" there.
:Good suggestion. I'll make the change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (EDT)