Talk:Liberal bigotry

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LiamG (Talk | contribs) at 12:23, 25 November 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Guess what HelpJazz is going to ask for? HelpJazz 16:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Yay! Citations! Do I get a cookie? Bugler 16:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Good job! You can have your cookie after you eat your vegetables put in the citation. HelpJazz 17:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)


Does this page need examples of bigotry? I'm not saying the current examples aren't good examples of bigotry (most of them are), but I can't help but think that most of these examples are not put up to give a clearer understanding of bigotry, but to make a political statement. --Ben Talk 18:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)

No, yet again, examples will never prove a point, especially when these examples are so fraught with opinion. HelpJazz 18:12, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Examples will never prove a point? Examples are the basis of all argument. They are fact. They are evidence. RodWeathers 18:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)
What do you mean, examples have never proven a point? Can you give an example where they've ever failed? --Ed Poor Talk 18:16, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry, maybe I missed something, why was the violence against abortion clinics removed as an example with the reason "The evidence being compiled is ample" only to be replaced with another example. If it was deleted on accident, then let me know and Ill put it back in. Also, I might just be naive, but isn't saying all members of a single group are bigots, in fact, also bigotry? The only defining characteristic of Atheists is that they don't believe in God. Some of them may be bigots, but so are some Christians, Jews, and pagans. Using an atheist who is claiming "all religious people should be locked up" is a good example of bigotry. Saying all atheists are like that is wrong. If I am correct, then the into should be changed since it is attributing bigotry to all members of the listed groups. --ScottA 18:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)
What I meant, Ed, was that he is trying to use exampes of bigotry to prove that all (or most) liberals are bigotted. It can't be done, unless he gives an example from all (or most) liberals. I don't know how many times I have said this across this wiki, but nobody seems to understand this point. HelpJazz 19:52, 13 November 2008 (EST)
You don't seem to understand the basis of statistics and representative data. It is utterly impossible to survey the entirety of a population in any study. Instead, we have to rely on representative examples, the broader the better. This establishes an underlying culture and shared values. RodWeathers 19:55, 13 November 2008 (EST)
That's not actually a problem for me. What that tells me is that you need to find a study that someone has done of bigotry and liberalism (it's not too outlandish to think that someone might have done it already), or find some reliable definition of liberal, elitist, atheist and homosexual that includes bigotry as one of its major characteristics, or change the language of the statement to match something you can back up. Some liberals are bigots, but not all of them, and they aren't the only ones. Some conservatives are bigots, how many examples do you want me to find before I can add conservatives to the list of people defined by bigotry? HelpJazz 20:02, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Never let it be said that I failed to understand a point. I was kind of pulling your leg with the 'example logic' above.

Apparently what is happening is that the two different sides are using selected examples to argue that the other side are the real bigots. Erasing each other's examples isn't going to remedy the situation. I suggest we try something else. --Ed Poor Talk 19:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Lol, sorry, Ed I missed your humor. I just spent waaaaaay too much time vetting the examples and I was a little tunnel visioned ;-) You are right, that examples can be used sometimes, but they can't be used to prove all inclusive statements, like the one in the article. HelpJazz 20:02, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Your comment above is most incisive; it cuts to the chase.

  • Some liberals are bigots, but not all of them, and they aren't the only ones. Some conservatives are bigots

Let's work together to expose bigotry of both left and right. I don't care which is "worse". Let's just be evenhanded about it. Underneath bigotry, perhaps there is truth waiting to be revealed. You'd have to be crazy to reject the truth - even if it "hurts" to learn it, it "will set you free". (John 8:32) --Ed Poor Talk 20:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)

That's reasonable. Feel free to divide it into sections of the bigotry and left and right if it suits you. (As if I'm in charge! :) ) RodWeathers 20:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Maybe that second section just needs to be deleted then? The examples are one-sided but there's nothing stopping it from being two-sided if more examples are added. HelpJazz 20:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Better to expose bigotry than let it be cloaked in darkness. (I did not intend to make it 'one-sided' or anything of the sort. The vast majority of the examples were gleaned from the main page news) RodWeathers 20:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)
You may not have intended the examples to be one-sided, but if you get your news from the main page you won't find a single example of conservative bigotry. By "second section", though, I meant the second paragraph. HelpJazz 20:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)

How about two columns? I think there's a way to make a table with MediaWiki markup. I'll help make the table, if you all will do the heavy lifting of locating and describing the examples. --Ed Poor Talk 20:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know if it's necessary. If our goal is to expose and denounce all bigotry, then putting it into "conservative bigotry" and "liberal bigotry" erodes our goal. HelpJazz 21:00, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Is the purpose of this page really to expose bigotry? Personally, I think that an encyclopedia entry should give a clear understanding of the concept, but not go beyond that. If the page becomes a conduit to "exposing bigotry", then it will get to long very quickly. I suggest we leave the four best examples (perhaps two liberal and two conservative) and remove the rest --Ben Talk 08:22, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I agree again. Clear-cut examples of bigotry actually can do much more to support an article than 50 wishy-washy ones. When you start to read the current list, one gets the idea that bigotry is disagreeing with an ideology, but bigotry is more than that. HelpJazz 12:30, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I suggest we leave the four best examples (perhaps two liberal and two conservative) Absolutely not - that sort of moral relativism is the worst sort of Liberal deceit-mongering. In what sense is it rational for Conservapedia to promote the pretence that Liberalism is as moral as Conservatism? This wasn't in the Commandments when I last looked. Post Liberal biogotries to Conservative bigotries in the proportions that they are manifested in real life. I guarantee that the Liberal list would break the page before we get half a dozen examples by so-called conservatives. Bugler 12:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Shall we then leave the format as is? RodWeathers 16:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)
The format being a long list of examples? I think everyone has agreed that we are fine with examples, as long as they are good and don't try to hide the truth.
Nobody has said anything about that second paragraph, though. HelpJazz 16:50, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Response to Bulger: Yes, as a general rule liberals are more bigoted than conservatives. However, you seem to have missed my point entirely. This page should not be used to attck liberals. This is an encyclopedia. It should merely explain what bigotry is, and provide a minimal number of good examples. Personally, I don't care whether we include examples of "conservative" bigotry. I only suggested that as a hopeful compromise. However, you are wrong to assert that that suggestion promoted "moral relativism". The Character of God, not "conservatism" is the one true standard of morality. Conservatives are not necessarily more moral than liberals. While I admit that some Liberal principles are contrary to God's word (and thus also his Character), it is not relativist to give examples of so-called conservatives deviating from God's moral standard. --Ben Talk 17:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)


How are the slurs used by conservatives not bigotry, and how are abortion clinic bombings "liberal bias"? HDCase 12:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry, you called abortion clinic bombings "garbage." My mistake. HDCase 13:07, 25 November 2008 (EST)
It appears you prowl from article to article injecting liberal spin and making trouble. Could you at least try contributing factual information to this encyclopedia? Thanks. - Rod Weathers 13:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Were his edits non-factual? LiamG 13:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)