Difference between revisions of "Talk:Deceit"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Andy...?!)
(The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit")
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings!  Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::Thank you for the warning, [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]], but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings!  Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "[[User:Human/Classic_Conservapedia|encyclopedia]]" that backs up this '''blog'''. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 
 
  
 
I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.
 
I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.
  
 
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
 
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
 +
 +
:Liberals here protest too much about this entry on [[deceit]].  In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven.  But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it?  Not that I'm aware.  Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.
 +
 +
: Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added.  But partisan opinions will not be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
  
 
== Examples ==
 
== Examples ==
Line 39: Line 42:
  
 
You can't delete fact!  That's a legitimate footnote from the case!  How is it opinion?  Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 
You can't delete fact!  That's a legitimate footnote from the case!  How is it opinion?  Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts.  I'm not going to waste more time on this.  This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.
 +
 +
: Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion.  It is not a fact.  There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral.  Do not waste any more of my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 00:16, 21 April 2007

The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit"

The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is your blog, basically, on the issues you hold dear. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the Bay of Tonkin lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. Human 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.
Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. Timppeli 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the warning, Timppeli, but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "encyclopedia" that backs up this blog. Human 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

Middle Man

Liberals here protest too much about this entry on deceit. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.
Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--Aschlafly 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)


Examples

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Paul Wolfowitz

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003[1] --Mtur 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Jack Abramoff

Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --Mtur 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Can deceit be conservative?

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. Flippin 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My 2 cents, again

What a ridiculous concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. People are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--PalMDtalk 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My viewpoint

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

Andy...?!

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-AmesGyo! 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.
Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--Aschlafly 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript