Difference between revisions of "Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?"

Revision as of 21:50, March 12, 2007

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --Truth is bipartisan 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It shouldn't. Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are postmodernistic in their thinking. Postmodernism asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous rhetorical question by Pontius Pilate.--TerryH 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. JoshuaZ 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are modernistic, which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "science" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. Atheists are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--TerryH 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). JoshuaZ 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe exactly the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." Dpbsmith 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --BenjaminS 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim not to have a bias and then take one anyway. --<<-David R->> 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative bias and conservative flavour. One can't have bias and be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. Tsumetai 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One can't be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half nonfactual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues or else we will abandon factuality. --BenjaminS 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. Tsumetai 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--Aschlafly 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--TheTruth 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be conservative. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --TimSvendsen 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It should. Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--ChrisF

I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--Sub Zenyth 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Counter Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what propaganda is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--TerryH 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--Donalbain 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and you are wrong. Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. That's not a part of the definition at all. What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.

Propaganda, n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [1]

Propaganda. Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [2]

..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any idea, fact, rumor, or lie, or a wider body of same, which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance or hinder any given cause." So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--Sub Zenyth 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will always face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must face the fact that we are stating facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves no favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to establish the facts, and then present them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--TerryH 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --Knowthetruth 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:

1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.

2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.

3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. Dpbsmith 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What fact do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--TerryH 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

Is that fair? Dpbsmith 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Let me rephrase myself: I have not found any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has yet adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some particular proponent of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the Bible itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

For example, a biography of Ayn Rand would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with Nathaniel Branden, the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

But what does that show, other than that Objectivism demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether God existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the globe is warming, that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that will befall the world--but "man-made injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" is not one of them.

In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--TerryH 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly the most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions may be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--ChrisF

Let us continue these discussions here and here.--TerryH 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

A story about the Christian Science Monitor

A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a huge obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. But it did not say that she had died. Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the Christian Science Monitor in that regard. (The Monitor fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) Dpbsmith 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Wait, what?

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site didn't have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --Phist

It could just not have a liberal bias. --Monotreme 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... Not gonna sign this 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is greatly overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. Phist

(Yes, it was a joke). Dpbsmith 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views benmatthews

See also

• Rhetorical question