Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberals and friendship"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Cites)
(Cites: replies)
Line 64: Line 64:
  
 
:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school.    I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)
 
:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school.    I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she".  Anyone who tries that student in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points.  You're "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here.  If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you.  Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
 +
 +
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would.  Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 16:00, 26 February 2008

Liberals aren't friends of Andy?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have any liberal friends, Andy? SSchultz 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- Fuzzy 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? SSchultz 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- Fuzzy 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Another take

A Christian friendship is a friendship on Christian terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of Christian values. It is often the product of peer pressure. Someone in a Christian friendship can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the Christian values.

A Christian friendship can occur wherever Christians apply peer pressure to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, atheists virtually never require censorship or acceptance of atheist principles as a condition of friendship.

I like this take, here's another one:
A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.
You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! SSchultz 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? Aboganza 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Die, heretic! SSchultz 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Come on

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false. I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.KarlJ 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. SSchultz 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)
What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.KarlJ 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. SSchultz 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Which statement. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.KarlJ 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)
KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--Aschlafly 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Please excuse me...comment fixed.KarlJ 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Reply to all above

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that all liberals behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--Aschlafly 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?KarlJ 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SSchultz (talk)


Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term politically correct developed out of a liberal insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--Aschlafly 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. SSchultz 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)
First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.KarlJ 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Cites

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --KimSell 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)
The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --KimSell 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)
Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)
This encyclopedia is really starting to baffle me. I made an edit to They, backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --KimSell 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)
There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to they, which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that student in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. You're "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If Wikipedia allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--Aschlafly 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)