Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law

From Conservapedia
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)

Conservatism is based heavily on logic, and over time logic does prevail. Promiscuity and homosexuality reduce lifespan, induce depression, and degrade participants. Over time, logic prevails. Promiscuity is rejected in greater numbers today than in the past, and Proposition 8 in the most liberal state sent a message against homosexuality that was unexpected by the media.
Meanwhile there are countless other issues, from gun control to taxes to ownership of gold to money market savings, where conservative positions are far more accepted today than in the past. And, alas, the percentage of people who self-identify as conservative is constantly increasing.--Andy Schlafly 19:36, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, why was my edit deleted, I feel this was a valid point. Wikipedia has over 500 entries on silly laws, but not one on conservapedia's law. I feel this is a perfect example of liberal bias. they are hiding from the truth--SayidR 23:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

There are many legitimate criticisms of Wikipedia, but your edit wasn't one of them. We're fair here and do not criticize others unfairly.--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective

I think we could all agree that before the fall, society was perfectly conservative. At what point would conservatism be at its lowest? Would it be before, during or after the destruction of Babel? Or maybe after the fall, conservatism decayed until the time of Jesus? What would a graph of conservatism look like across time? Could it be that Jesus will return upon mankind's return to perfect conservatism? If so, could Conservapedia's law help us make an educated guess as to when that might be? BradB 22:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

I'd guess it's been a geometric growth in conservatism since Jesus. Before that, logic and the Old Testament would have helped, but evil was at work too. Right before the Great Flood it was pretty bleak; afterward, things were in good shape at least initially.--Andy Schlafly 22:47, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Without a liberal corollary, Conservapedia's Law implies that conservatism has no limit. Do you think that is the case? I don't think we could possibly become "more conservative" than before the fall - it'd be like saying you could become more sinless than Adam was. I'm proposing that liberal creep acts as the limiting factor of conservatism, and is a corollary of Conservapedia's Law. BradB 23:26, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I agree with Brad B. Just as we do not live in an infinite universe, we cannot become more conservative than the infinite conservatism society had before the fall. Nothing can be more than infinity. DennyW66 23:40, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Geometric progressions never reach infinity, which is the mathematical analog of where Adam and Eve were before the Fall.--Andy Schlafly 23:43, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I realize that, but isn't it possible that it could eventually reach an arbitrarily large number that would be extremely close to 100% conservatism? In my humble opinion, conservatism (as is the case with nearly everything) has some sort of limit. Whether it will be reached in our lifetimes (or 10 or 100 lifetimes from now) is unknowable. My point is, if there were some sort of hypothetical figure that represented total conservatism, that it could not be reached by Conservapedia's Law? Of course, I hope that eventually we do reach 100% conservatism, but I am curious as to your opinion, Mr. Schlafly. DennyW66 23:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I do not follow your logic. Geometric progressions always reach infinity when the absolute value of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1. Conervapedia's Law posits a ratio of 2. Do you expect conservative edits to Conservapedia to increase at this doubling rate? If not, why? BradB 12:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Take, for example, conservative words. There is not an infinite amount of words (or possible words) in the English language. If the amount of conservative words increases at this geometric rate, isn't there a point where every word is conservative? Since the series continues indefinitely to infinity, and will never reach infinity, it reasons that it will pass this point at some time. From that, that is why I agree adding some definition of "liberal creep" as a corollary to Conservapedia's Law, as it is not possible to reach infinite conservatism. To answer your original question, while I certainly hope growth continues at this rate (if not faster), the long-term accuracy of this insight (and by long-term i mean millennia, or until the Rapture) remains to be seen. DennyW66 13:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Good points, Denny. I think we would expect conservative insights to eventually decline in the same fashion that we see conservative insights added to Conservapedia decline. After a certain amount of time, it just can't keep up the pace because the core articles/principles are already here and can't become any more conservative. Whether or not it is liberal creep and/or other factors that limits the growth of conservatism, I don't know. What do you think your "graph of conservatism" would look like? It'd be fun to compare. Do you think true conservatism could be the harbinger of the return of Christ? BradB 19:17, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
If we accept that at the time of Adam (pre Fall) conservatism was infinite, then even with the observed geometric expansion of conservatism observed and described as Conservapedia's law, it is not possible for conservatism to reach that level again. This ties nicely in with the teaching of the Bible, that the Creation was perfect and sin-free initially, but due to the Fall such a level of perfection/conservatism cannot be reattained. MikeOxlong 19:24, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Very well put, Mike. Note that extrapolating 100 generations into the future is an implausible view that may be the result of a belief in an Old Earth. In fact, there's no logical reason to expect more than a few generations into the future. See, e.g., Counterexamples to an Old Earth.--Andy Schlafly 20:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
I guess I don't accept the premise that conservatism is infinite. I believe being conservative is similar to being sinless: can you get any more sinless than not sinning? How can you get any more conservative than conservative? In terms of the graphs, a graph of conservatism would have an asymptote representing conservatism before the Fall - a level we can approach (maybe even meet), but not exceed. Conserapedia's Law does not predict such an asymptote for the growth of conservatism.
What is the argument that conservatism is infinite? BradB 20:27, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Conservatism is logic and faith. Aren't both boundless?--Andy Schlafly 20:39, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Faith and logic are boundless, but I'm not persuaded that faith and logic are conservatism. If conservative insights increase at a geometric rate with a ratio of 2, why wouldn't we expect additions to Conservapedia to increase at the same rate? BradB 20:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
I'm not convinced that faith and logic are boundless, as they are abstract concepts and can vary from person to person; you can't have "80% faith" in something, for example. However, in most cases I would agree that faith and logic are conservatism. It is obvious that conservative values lead to faith in a higher power, and conservative thinking is analogous to logic. Going back to what BradB said, it is certainly true that logic and faith are large components of conservatism, but there are other components, such as the inherent charitableness and chivalry conservatives exhibit, among other things. Unfortunately, I don't think conservatism can be infinite, as there is a finite amount of people in the world, but I think we all hope it could be! DennyW66 23:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

In reply to BradB, I don't think quantity of edits is all that meaningful. The New Testament is far shorter than the Old Testament, and Jesus's own teachings were briefer still. Denny makes an interesting point about charitableness and chivalry, but aren't both a product of logic and faith as well? Charity in light of its superior efficiency and promotion of God's will, and chivalry in light of its promotion of good relations between the genders.--Andy Schlafly 01:07, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

That's an interesting point Mr. Schlafly. Charity can definitely be an outgrowth of logic, and chivalry can be an outgrowth of faith in good gender relations. However, as I said in a previous comment, there are definitely more components to conservatism that may or may not fit under the umbrella of "logic and faith". For example, self-reliance, a decidedly conservative trait; I'm not sure it can fit neatly under logic or faith. It can't fit under logic neatly because logic by definition is coming to one, undeniably correct solution. WHile I of course agree with self-reliance, and believe it to be correct, it is possible to look at the other side's argument with an open mind and not immediately dismiss it. Self-reliance can't neatly fit under faith because faith in the power of oneself can never surpass, or come close to, faith in the power of God. This is just one example; conservatism is so much more wondrous than the two components of logic and faith, and that over-simplification may deter liberals from coming to the right side. DennyW66 01:23, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Andy, if a conservative insight can't generate even a single corresponding edit to Conservapedia, it isn't really a conservative insight. BradB 14:49, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
So I was reading the essay and had an interesting idea: conservatism was absolute before the Fall, and Eve's corruption of Adam after her temptation by Satan marked the introduction of liberalism into the world. What was the temptation to Eve? It was for her to usurp the natural order and roles assigned by God. Would it therefore be valid to say that the Fall not only introduced liberalism into the world, but was caused by the first act of feminism? NateCev 11:41, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

I disagree - good vs. evil not political, Europe

I have to say that I disagree with this whole idea. Good and evil don't take political sides. There are plenty of registered-Democrat Catholics who, despite the pro-choice stance of the Democratic Party which popes and bishops have consistently condemned, and consistent record of government, truly believe that Big Government can help the poor, end hunger, and protect the environment. Also, many conservatives are Ayn Rand supporters who hold to beliefs like "greed is good" and "my only responsibility to society is to increase the wealth of my shareholders". (Jimbo Wales, and his opposition to his ex-wife becoming a nurse, come to mind.) As Jesus put it, both parties should give Caesar back his money, and get busy on the will of God.

Also, we must look at Europe for an example of conservatism's decline. All politics over there is left of us, abortion is frequent and treated as no different than birth control, belief in God and Christ is in the minority. The current Pope Benedict XVI has stated he was surprised at how the US can be such a Christian nation given its religious freedom and separation of church and state. -danq 00:18, 30 March 2011 (EDT)