Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project (M)"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Craig, please stop reinserting the same edit.)
(Craig, please stop reinserting the same edit.)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
], [http://www.nambla.com].  Let's drop it. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 18:51, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
 
], [http://www.nambla.com].  Let's drop it. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 18:51, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::I had links to site promoting child marriage, but I don't think Conservapedia allows them. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 18:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::I had links to site promoting child marriage, but I don't think Conservapedia allows them. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 18:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Alright, so ONE PERSON--who is never identified as a liberal or as having any other political ideology--wrote a thesis THIRTY YEARS ago which she has SINCE DISAVOWED. Where is the support for your contention? Did you read as far as the part where it says "Now, having written several books on the economics of marriage, Grossbard says, "I know better."." Try again. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
  
 
==Minutemen==
 
==Minutemen==
 
I would love to see documentation that proves that liberals ignore minutemen. I'm as liberal as they come and I've never once doubted the importance of the minutemen in the Revolution.
 
I would love to see documentation that proves that liberals ignore minutemen. I'm as liberal as they come and I've never once doubted the importance of the minutemen in the Revolution.

Revision as of 17:56, 7 September 2011

"liberals want to define marriage as anything they want"

Please show me where there is a credible movement with the support of the liberal political/intellectual establishment that is campaigning to legalize marriage involving children or animals. If you do not provide a credible reference, I will revert the edit in 24 hours. Thanks. BrentH 15:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a dictionary project, it doesn't rely on references, it relies on the realities of the true meaning of words and the liberal agenda. Liberals want to redefine marriage anyway they want, they are very good at hiding their real agenda, but many conservative politicians have picked up on it. Liberals like NAMBLA promote marriage between adults and children, Muslims want polygamy, homosexuals want gay marriage and some liberal Furrys want marriage between animal and man. Open your eyes. --CraigF 15:45, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the way a dictionary works, but they very much do rely on references, namely by giving documented evidence of words being used in a particular manner. BrentH 15:51, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps you should argue against the facts that I have presented rather than using straw men. Don't deny the truth, liberals want to redefine marriage anyway they want. I don't know what you mean by "parody," this isn't supposed to be funny. How can you be "over the top" if you are presenting facts? --CraigF 16:07, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Can you show me a credible liberal campaign to allow "man to marry beast?" BrentH 16:13, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Also, as this is a dictionary project we should try to keep our definitions straight. Furries are people who like to dress up as anthropomorphic animals and engage in sex, it has nothing to do with bestiality.
And for the record, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in the gay community who supports NAMBLA. Gays dislike pedophiles as much as the rest of the world. --JonnS 16:19, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Gays and Nambla are different, but they are both liberals who defy God's law. Many Furrys engage in bestiality, look it up. --CraigF 16:38, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Craig, you're very good at making sweeping statements with no supporting documentation whatsoever. BrentH 16:44, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Tried finding anything about furrys engaging in bestiality but there was nothing credible on the first couple of pages of a google search, which leads me to believe that bestiality is not an important component of furrys--JonnS 16:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
John you are a liberal, you obviously don't read the bible and you are obviously supporting the liberal agenda. Furries engage in both simulated and real bestiality. I can't believe I'm arguing this with you. You are arguing that depraved people aren't depraved. --CraigF 19:00, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you have any documented evidence that 1. this kind of behavior is widespread enough so as to be noteworthy, and 2, that it translates into a viable political move to allow for man-animal marriages? BrentH 19:13, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, I would like to see evidence as well... Also, my liberal bias is well documented on my user page, check it out.
Also, I would like to know what your stance on Animal Husbandry is?--JonnS 20:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
The point is liberals want to redefine marriage to mean anything they want. I refuse to answer liberal JohnS's mocking and ridiculous questions. I assume he will be blocked shortly for trying to insert liberal propaganda into this dictionary project. --CraigF 13:19, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

"The point is liberals want to redefine marriage to mean anything they want." Do you have evidence that "liberal" activists/politicians/intellectuals/opinion-makers are trying to "redefine" marriage to include children or animals? BrentH 14:21, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Craig, I really would like to know what your stance on animal husbandry is. Also, it's Jonn, not John, please don't misspell my name...
You will blocked soon enough. It is a frequent liberal tactict to divert the arguement to non sequiters and typos when they are losing. --CraigF 16:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I can see children, kinda... but pretty much anybody pushing for legalization of marriage outside the Human Species is going to be so far in the direction of insane they have no ability to influence politics or popular culture. --SeanS 16:08, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Well liberalism is a form of insanity so I'm not surprised. I'll admit that most liberals keep quiet about their support for inter species marriage, so I revised the wording, but I really think we need to be cautious about liberals like John pushing their liberal propaganda in a project that is supposed to be fixing that problem. --CraigF 16:11, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Craig, most of my friends are Liberals, and truuuust me, none of them push for humans being able to marry a dog. Nor do most liberals, now if you'd like to actually to provide evidence they do, I'd love to see it, because im wondering where you got this idea from.--SeanS 16:18, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
@ CraigF - 1) I know you won't provide one, because you dislike actual references and real research, but I would love to see a cite stating that "most liberals keep quiet about their support for inter species marriage". 2) Stop making arguments personal. You normally attack the user, not the argument. Turn that around, because you're pushing the boundaries of civility. --SharonW 16:20, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
The issue isn't necessarily what a liberal would want to define marriage as. It is the fact that it is a liberal position that marriage can be defined as anything the government wants. Do most liberals support legalization of marriage between a man and a beast? No. Do most liberals support the idea that marriage between a man and a beast could be legalized? Yes. Perhaps this differentiation may help unite the two sides of this debate.--GrahamB 16:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, thank you for your attempt at getting Craig to argue the actual issues. You seem to be one of the more responsible people here on the site and I appreciate you maintaining the voice of reason.
Craig, again, I would like you to clarify your positions on animal husbandry. I will admit that this is a trick question, but still, I really wish you would simply answer my one simple question: Do you suppoort Animal Husbandry or not?--JonnS 17:58, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, John is a self admitted liberal, I don't know why you would side with him in project whose stated goal is to remove liberal bias from language. But it is nice to see you attacking me personally while telling me not to make things personal. GrahamB has said it better than I have, this is what I mean. Anyway, I already changed the wording but still you want to argue about it a typical liberal tactic. --CraigF 16:59, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
CraigF - stating you dislike references and research when you've flat-out refuse to provide any is not a personal attack - it's the truth. And asking for civility isn't "taking sides". You've flung accusations at me before (calling me "anti-American" because of a discussion on Henry Ford), and I've completely lost patience with you. --SharonW 17:06, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Calling someone a liberal when they act like it and admit to on their user page is the truth. I don't get why you use double standards like that. I just call a spade a spade, I'm only complaining about your hypocrisy. --CraigF 17:09, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
You don't call a spade a spade. When you're confronted with a demand for proof for your statements, you attack the person involved. You did this to me on the car articles - you called me stupid for insisting on references. JonnS (a name which you continue to misspell) politely requested references. There's no double standards here - right now I just want to see if you are willing to back up any of your statements. You might very well be right - prove it. --SharonW 17:22, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Boy do you hold a grudge, that was weeks ago and now you are are here demanding references for obvious facts just to give me a hard time. Is there a single reference in the entire dictionary project? No. But if a liberal demands one I have to go running around to find one and stop adding entries just to satisfy him. This is how liberal bias gets created and it should stop here. I already changed the entry to appease a liberal which makes me kinda sick, but I did it so I could move on, but you insist on making a fight. I'll give you the last word. --CraigF 17:29, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Again, I have never debated that I am indeed a liberal. I'd go so far as to classify myself as a Socialist, Keynesian, who would like nothing more than to see the neo-liberal policies our country has put in place over the past 3 decades to be washed away. I am also an agnostic who doesn't care whether god exists or not, and who doesn't care what other people beliefs are so long as they are not imposed on me. Morally, I need no incentive to try to do good in the world, and take pride in trying to make the world a better place. If you feel the need to attack me, or question my views and values, feel free to do so on my talk page, although you should be prepared to back up your reasoning when doing so. That being said, I am doing my very best to be civil, I believe Sharon is trying to be civil as well as well. I would also like to take a moment to state that me and Sharon are not trying to team up on you. I have a feeling that Sharon and I would disagree on pretty much everything, however, she does take the time to back up her arguments which only strengthens the positions she takes on issues. Although I probably disagree with her, I respect her opinions and her right to keep those opinions. On the other hand, Craig seems to have taken the position that since he is a conservative he is correct, either that, or he is a parodist. Actually, I think it is most likely that Craig is indeed a parodist, as he behaves exactly how a liberal characterization of a right wing extremist would act. I'm debating even mentioning this. And again, Craig, yes it is a trick question, but I would love to know your position on animal husbandry. Take the time to look it up to better defend yourself from my "liberal trickery" but please answer me. Even a simple yes or no answer would do!--JonnS 17:58, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Craig, please stop reinserting the same edit.

Several users have now asked you to provide evidence that "liberals" are in favor of redefining marriage in the way in which you claim, and you have not provided a scrap of documentation. Please do not edit-war with no documented evidence. Thank you. BrentH 18:42, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Here, is your documentation: [1], [2], [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/pro-polygamy-economist-discovers-that-polygamy-has-institutionalized-women-into-subservience.html

], [3]. Let's drop it. --CraigF 18:51, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

I had links to site promoting child marriage, but I don't think Conservapedia allows them. --CraigF 18:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Alright, so ONE PERSON--who is never identified as a liberal or as having any other political ideology--wrote a thesis THIRTY YEARS ago which she has SINCE DISAVOWED. Where is the support for your contention? Did you read as far as the part where it says "Now, having written several books on the economics of marriage, Grossbard says, "I know better."." Try again. BrentH 18:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Minutemen

I would love to see documentation that proves that liberals ignore minutemen. I'm as liberal as they come and I've never once doubted the importance of the minutemen in the Revolution.