Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(reply re: geometric increase in conservative insights)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston
 
::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston
 +
 +
:::::You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior. 
 +
 +
:::::More than 150 terms in [[Essay:Best New Conservatives Words]] demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications.  I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind.  Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
 +
 
== Did I do something wrong? ==
 
== Did I do something wrong? ==
  

Revision as of 16:45, 10 June 2009

While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.

The entry is just as clear as Moore's Law is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about gun control: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.
I gave over 150 examples: see Essay:Best New Conservative Words and the geometric pattern it displays.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston
You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.
More than 150 terms in Essay:Best New Conservatives Words demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications. I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind. Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--Andy Schlafly 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Did I do something wrong?

Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --CJHallock 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted. You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy. Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)