Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia"

Revision as of 18:20, May 4, 2007

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The Deceit article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that Mockery is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. Trashbat 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --Colest 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--Sm355 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. DanH 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to be.--Olly 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Procreation, Fornication, and Bisexuality. --Hojimachong^talk 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to Bisexuality ; ) Trashbat 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

That wasn't me, it was Ed ;-). --Hojimachong^talk 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. Erasmus 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. Czolgolz 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Sir...

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must at least consider the possibility that this is because it deserves it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary^[1] zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

1. ↑ kuhn-trair-ee - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary

--Robledo 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)