Difference between revisions of "Talk:Embraced deceit"
From Conservapedia
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: No, we won't be allowing the [[placement bias]] that you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:36, 8 March 2008 (EST) | : No, we won't be allowing the [[placement bias]] that you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:36, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
::Andy, I merely propose using your own terms in the manner that you suggest them. You yourself have said that your examples of deceit are in fact examples of "embraced deceit," which is a subset of run of the mill deceit. Why do you object to your own term being used?-'''<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> 15:13, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ::Andy, I merely propose using your own terms in the manner that you suggest them. You yourself have said that your examples of deceit are in fact examples of "embraced deceit," which is a subset of run of the mill deceit. Why do you object to your own term being used?-'''<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> 15:13, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: Ames, that's not what I said, as not all of the examples are [[embraced deceit]]. I'm not going to spend all afternoon correcting you. Contribute, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Parody? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am trying to decide if this particular article is a parody, or if the entire Conservapedia website is a parody. It must surely be one or the other. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:33, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Humblpi, perhaps you're a parody of a clueless [[liberal]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:34, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::No, but I am genuinely puzzled. As far as I can see, you coin a phrase ("embraced deceit") out of thin air, create an article about it, and then add a comment that "Embraced deceit is common among liberals, but non-existent among conservatives". And to support this sweeping generalisation you point to the list at [[Deceit]], which is a very one-sided list of examples that is systematically purged of any mention of a deceit that does not fit your agenda. More of a bootstrap technique than anything like evidence for the claim. The article at [[Liberal friendship]] is the same. There is no justification for the assertion that "liberals" treat friendship any differently than "conservatives", and any challenge to your opinion, even any request for evidence to support the assertion, is met with scorn and ejection. It seems a funny way to run an encyclopedia that aims to be trustworthy and to tell the unbiased truth. That's all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:42, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == non-existant? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Really, Conservatives never are deceitful? Wow, that must be pretty cool [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 14:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :It appears that Andy wanted that sentence to be in the article. check history. | ||
| + | thanks--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 16:20, 10 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:31, March 24, 2008
Andy Conflating Terms
If this is actually different than deceit, and if your liberal examples are all of embraced deceit, then maybe you should move them over here and admit that liberals don't uniquely practice deceit. As you've conceded, there are some conservative examples of deceit, right? In short, don't conflate the terms, and expect us to (1) ignore or (2) not notice it. Also, please don't take this as a waiver of my objection to "embraced deceit" being practiced only by liberals. But that's for another day.-αmεσ (advocate) 14:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)
- No, we won't be allowing the placement bias that you suggest.--Aschlafly 14:36, 8 March 2008 (EST)
- Andy, I merely propose using your own terms in the manner that you suggest them. You yourself have said that your examples of deceit are in fact examples of "embraced deceit," which is a subset of run of the mill deceit. Why do you object to your own term being used?-αmεσ (advocate) 15:13, 8 March 2008 (EST)
- Ames, that's not what I said, as not all of the examples are embraced deceit. I'm not going to spend all afternoon correcting you. Contribute, or please leave. Thank you.--Aschlafly 15:18, 8 March 2008 (EST)
Parody?
I am trying to decide if this particular article is a parody, or if the entire Conservapedia website is a parody. It must surely be one or the other. Humblpi 15:33, 8 March 2008 (EST)
- No, but I am genuinely puzzled. As far as I can see, you coin a phrase ("embraced deceit") out of thin air, create an article about it, and then add a comment that "Embraced deceit is common among liberals, but non-existent among conservatives". And to support this sweeping generalisation you point to the list at Deceit, which is a very one-sided list of examples that is systematically purged of any mention of a deceit that does not fit your agenda. More of a bootstrap technique than anything like evidence for the claim. The article at Liberal friendship is the same. There is no justification for the assertion that "liberals" treat friendship any differently than "conservatives", and any challenge to your opinion, even any request for evidence to support the assertion, is met with scorn and ejection. It seems a funny way to run an encyclopedia that aims to be trustworthy and to tell the unbiased truth. That's all. Humblpi 15:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)
non-existant?
Really, Conservatives never are deceitful? Wow, that must be pretty cool DLerner 14:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- It appears that Andy wanted that sentence to be in the article. check history.
thanks--Heffalump 16:20, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
