Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TFWilliams (Talk | contribs) at 17:21, 21 June 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.

The entry is just as clear as Moore's Law is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about gun control: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.
I gave over 150 examples: see Essay:Best New Conservative Words and the geometric pattern it displays.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston
You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.
More than 150 terms in Essay:Best New Conservatives Words demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications. I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind. Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--Andy Schlafly 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
There are more than just three examples from the list of new conservative words that are not distinctly conservative. Also, I’m not sure if making the argument that conservative insights increase geometrically based on the word list is all that quantifiable. Words and language evolve and develop for a variety of reasons and it would be difficult if not impossible to attribute a words creation or popular use, for example, productivity, altruism, incompleteness, initiative, insightful, elitism, deflation, accountability, hysteria, leverage, local, motivation, optimism, phonics, potential, quantify, self-reliant, self-defence, vandalism, veracity, victimization, work ethic, etc, to conservative thought. However, it would be an interesting project to undertake, albeit a time consuming one. My point is that you need to develop a stronger argument for the theory that these conservative words are increasing geometrically with proof that they are developed because of conservative thought, and that conservative thought will continue to grow. Stating that they increase geometrically with no support to back it up, besides the observation that the number of terms increases from century to century is not a strong enough argument, for me anyway. I want there to be the support and sources to back it up. I’d be willing to assist in developing this argument further. - Cjohnston
Your long-winded reply was unresponsive. You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms. Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative. I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway. If you want "support and sources" for an original insight, you're not going to find them. Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I understand that you don’t have time to explain each term and I am not asking you to. Though I still believe that the terms I outlined are not distinctly conservative terms and I don’t think it is ‘obvious’ that I was wrong about that because you haven’t explained why I am. Retuning to the original issue I raised, even if you have developed an ‘original insight’ it still needs to be explained well enough to stand as a strong argument. One of the things stressed in highschool and particularly post-secondary school is an argument needs to be well developed and well supported, which includes ‘original insights.’ Perhaps this example with help clarify my argument: I could develop an ‘original insight’ that the colour (note my spelling) of the sky is green. Most people would argue that no, the sky is in fact blue. If I did not develop the argument that the sky is green any further, it would not be considered a credible or strong argument. However, if I clarified with the support that the sky can appear green during intense thunderstorms as a result of water and ice scattering green light waves during strong updrafts in thunderstorms, the argument then makes much more sense and can stand as being a strong and credible argument. I hope this helps clarify my concerns. - Cjohnston
You haven't clarified anything for me, and your talk-to-substance ratio is very high. See liberal style.
Are you saying there are no legitimate new conservative words? If you concede there are some, then it's possible to estimate their rate of increase, which we've done. If you insist there are none, then you lack the open-mind you claim to have.--Andy Schlafly 15:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston
You won't deny it, but you won't admit it either. Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself. Your non-committal comments have not been productive here.
You've posted ten times, all talk. That's in violation of our 90/10 rule. I'll be lenient and block you for only a day but please don't return unless you want to contribute to this encyclopedia in a substantive manner. Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint.--Andy Schlafly 22:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Did I do something wrong?

Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --CJHallock 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted. You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy. Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--Andy Schlafly 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Societies become more conservative?

I question the assumption that societies become inevitably more conservative over time. Over the last 200 years we have seen a fundamental shift in society towards liberal values - promiscuity, for example, has been on the rise for over 50 years now. Attitudes surrounding things like homosexuality, sex before marriage, and race relations are becoming more liberal, not more conservative. As young generations seek solely their own gratification and try to find the easiest way to enjoy life, I fear this is a trend we will continue to see. Thoughts? TFWilliams 19:21, 21 June 2009 (EDT)