Difference between revisions of "Talk:Deceit"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Enron... Nixon...: reply)
(Enron... Nixon...)
Line 530: Line 530:
Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit.  How is that not "embraced"?  Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial.  How are they not similarly embracing deceit?  Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''<font color="#CC0000">α</font><font color="#A0A0A0">m</font><font color="#0099FF">ε</font><font color="#003399">σ</font>''' <small>[[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]]</small> 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 14:08, 8 March 2008

Archives: 1


Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --Ben Talk 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

10 Commandments

I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. Jrssr5 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

"Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for normative purposes in textbooks either.--Aschlafly 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. Jrssr5 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. Maestro 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --Ursus 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. Underscoreb 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

contradiction in the definition

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

  • " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
  • "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'all deceit is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say: "Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --SeanTheSheep 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --Aulis Eskola 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--Aschlafly 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--SeanTheSheep 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--Aschlafly 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--SeanTheSheep 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)


So, regarding this edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:

  1. They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of stereotype, and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
  2. Reference #2 suggests that only conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.

Am I the only one who notices this? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.Богдан Talk 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. Богдан Talk 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. Sevenstring 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.
Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--Aschlafly 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--Aschlafly 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? Sevenstring 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".
Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--Aschlafly 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the vast majority of all American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. OneLove 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. Sevenstring 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--Aschlafly 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
  • Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
  • Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
  • Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is right, which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. OneLove 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--Aschlafly 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Hey, I'm a qualified attender also!Богдан Talk 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.Downinmyheart 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.
A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!
Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--Aschlafly 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia, there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. TigersRoar 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Took about five seconds on google... but personally I think it's a liberal scam. Feebasfactor 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)


Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
  • You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Democratic Party

David Limbaugh accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 boat people who died escaping the Communists.)

  • Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
  • Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
  • Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [1]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the Democratic Party by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --Ed Poor Talk 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

American Public Schools

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. EQ 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

  • The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. Maestro 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT) http://www.goodcharacter.com/

  • Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? Maestro 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
No American public schools teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
it took me 30 seconds: Lying is wrong[2] Dkips 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to public schools or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. PortlyMort 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught long before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it at all because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! Stryker 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? Learn together 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.
Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. Learn together 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)


Should we mention Bill Clinton's deceitful testimony in the Paula Jones case? It got him impeached (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether oral sex counts as sexual intercourse).

Is it adultery and/or grounds for divorce on account of unfaithfulness if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it sexual harassment, given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

Pat Tillman example needs work

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman [3]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and FDR covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

How about a general article on friendly fire first? --Ed Poor Talk 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-

a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [4]
c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by deceit. Just because it's not liberal deceit doesn't mean this incident is not deceit. NotForgotten 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a free press is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for partisan advantage, it's usually a good thing. --Ed Poor Talk 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. NotForgotten 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.
Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.
Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of friendly fire, which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? NotForgotten 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.
Since you didn't jump in and help me write Pat Tillman, I went ahead and did it by myself. See also fratricide and friendly fire. (You can do free-fire zone if you have time.) --Ed Poor Talk 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Another Example

Perhaps the works of Ernst Haeckel and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? Learn together 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Catalog or informative article?

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have ten different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from liberal deceit, which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Public Schools

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY Dragonmaster 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka plagiarism? Jazzman831 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. Maestro 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. Maestro 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?
How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --Ed Poor Talk 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A liberal newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[5], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly con­demned in the Scriptures"[6]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit deceitful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. Learn together 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual and adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality and adultery, both of which he committed. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. Bohdan 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Which sounds more like Haggard:
  • "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself" from hypocrisy
  • "the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another" from deceit? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. Bohdan 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. Learn together 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? Learn together 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.
As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the liberal media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of liberals like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--Aschlafly 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. Maestro 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Some liberals delight in deceit, and they have succeeded in driving morality out of public schools. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about liberals. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about liberals. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.
Provide a conservative example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.
Surely you don't expect deceit to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--Aschlafly 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.

::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, do you really expect deceit to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, liberals and conservatives?
Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--Aschlafly 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his all liberals practice comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's Some liberals delight. There's a big difference between some and all, well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of Aristotle.

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)


Since I apparently shouldn't use the {{delete}} stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -DrSandstone

  • The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of deceit and Liberal Bias without pointing to specifics. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with {{delete}} without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you Learn together 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Environmental hoaxes and hogwash

Should we list or link to global warming, ozone depletion, etc.? --Ed Poor Talk 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. Graham 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. HelpJazz 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work hoax to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that crop circles are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --Ed Poor Talk 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? Graham 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about Category:Junk science? --Ed Poor Talk 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. Graham 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
CP is way ahead of you: Junk science ;) --Jenkins 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that secondhand smoke is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --Ed Poor Talk 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. Politicians, on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. HelpJazz 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Reversion explained

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our rules, please. Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. Maestro 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. Maestro 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to Talk:Deceit and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the liberal fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--Aschlafly 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. Maestro 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? Learn together 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about Islam seemed unsupported and motivated by political correctness. Your statement about Wikipedia seemed false since the entry had the date of the liberal falsehood on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. Maestro 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? ENelson 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)Maestro 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. Learn together 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.Maestro 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Heading edit

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. ENelson 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Wonderful! They'll never allow it. Maestro 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.
Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.ENelson 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--Mircofixit 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

How we differ from Wikipedia

We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.

The above section is quoted from the current version of Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims "Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives." being backed up by a conservative commentary and a conservative column. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an opinion of some conservatives. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --Jenkins 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --Jenkins 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --Jenkins 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. ConanO 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
  1. That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
    • That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
  2. That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
    • How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
  3. That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
    • The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are opinions, not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's Liberal article:
Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[7]
See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --Jenkins 13:19, 11 October 2007


Read My Lips

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? Monitor 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? Dewey 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. Maestro 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." Dewey 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the Democrats who controlled Congress becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--Aschlafly 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? Maestro 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that Jonathan Wells also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:

Adam Sedgwick, 1894
William Garstang, 1922
Gavin de Beer, 1958
William Ballard, 1976
Stephen J. Gould, 1977
Richard Elinson, 1987
Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
Michael Richardson, 1995
Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [8]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. Conservative 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Broken source link

Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. GodWarrior 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I am officially leaving this website after reading this

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. ModerateCatholic 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Usually the Parthian Shots do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend liberal Wikipedia for you in the meantime.--Aschlafly 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. ModerateCatholic 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. ModerateCatholic 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Pathetic Rubbish

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

Deceit plays a central role promoting the liberal belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many liberals promote deceit if it advances their goals.

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --SimonA 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

"SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many liberals do use deceit to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on deceit provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by liberals. Feel free to try to fool users of Wikipedia, but we're not fooled here.--Aschlafly 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. Underscoreb 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)
The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.
The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --SimonA 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Many liberals don't even accept the Ten Commandments, let alone think that deceit is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant deceit advanced -- and embraced -- by conservatives. Note how many of the examples of liberal deceit continued to be embraced by other liberals who recognized the deceit.--Aschlafly 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)
"Many liberals don't even accept the Ten Commandments, let alone think that deceit is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --SimonA 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)


My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. ModerateCatholic 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of disagreeing with you is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. ModerateCatholic 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You're wrong. Liberals often reject the Ten Commandments, and liberals use deceit far more than conservatives do. The list proves it.--Aschlafly 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D Underscoreb 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. ModerateCatholic 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical liberal style. You're in violation of our rules and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--Aschlafly 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)
OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. ModerateCatholic 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Liberals and Deceit

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--GGgg 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --Crocoite 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--GGgg 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --Crocoite 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--GGgg 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--GGgg 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Nobody said that only liberals deceive, but the liberal ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the rules.--Aschlafly 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--GGgg 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Well, who do you think are the ones always engaging in deceit? Feebasfactor 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--GGgg 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--GGgg 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

...but do you see any examples of conservative deceit on this page? Why do you think that is? Feebasfactor 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--GGgg 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)
No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of deceit, because that is a very deceitful, liberal thing to do! Feebasfactor 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--GGgg 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the Deceit page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. Humblpi 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Piltdown Man

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the victims of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the deceivers. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows:

The Piltdown Man was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. Darwinists officially declared The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and gave it given a formal name: Eoanthropus dawsoni, in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.[1] But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."[2] Yet evolutionists continued this deceit Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, teaching it in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the Scopes trial in 1925) and publicizing it as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). [3]

What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--Aschlafly 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)
Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. Humblpi 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)
Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! Humblpi 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)
I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus deliberate ignorance. Surely you don't doubt that the Piltdown Man had all three among evolutionists?!--Aschlafly 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)
Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! Humblpi 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)
Logic is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the Piltdown Man was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists.--Aschlafly 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)
You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the Piltdown Man was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the perpetuation of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an error. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were victims of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. Humblpi 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Reversion explained

The list is deceit. They are mostly liberal but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of deceit accepted and promoted by conservatives, then let's see them here. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--Realist2 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--Aschlafly 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --Realist2 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. BenSchumin 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

That's right. By 1972 -- before Nixon's cover-up of Watergate, conservatives were so opposed to Nixon that conservatives actually tried to defeat him in the Republican primary by backing John Ashbrook.--Aschlafly 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --Realist2 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --Realist2 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

To some degree that's actually true - since conservatives, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. Liberals, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. Hammet 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Enron... Nixon...

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? Humblpi 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)

I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really true conservatives. Feebasfactor 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)
For that matter, shouldn't people like Jim & Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.Welshman 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. Liberals deny that they have sinned, and deny their deceit. Koba 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The deceit in this list is typically embraced deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a conservative against the numerous examples of liberal deceit.--Aschlafly 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-αmεσ (advocate) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)
  1. http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html
  2. http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html
  3. Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age, Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.