Difference between revisions of "Talk:Embraced deceit"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Andy Conflating Terms: nope)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
: 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)

Revision as of 15:13, 8 March 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)