Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal gullibility"

Revision as of 10:48, May 4, 2008

Some real problems here.

   * global warming must be caused by man

(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)

   * providing government health care for all will reduce illness

(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)

   * the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are

(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)

   * the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man! 

(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed. AdenJ 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Problems

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples. "taking away guns will prevent gun crime"

This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.

"global warming must be caused by man"

This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it is caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.

"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"

This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.

"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"

Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.

"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are

I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.

"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"

This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?

Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--TomMoore 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Entry confirmed

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And Michael Moore and others make a mint off of them.--Aschlafly 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten. AdenJ 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to atheists. And you've found no error with the statement about global warming in the entry here.--Aschlafly 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like AdenJ

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--TomMoore 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. LyleB 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--TomMoore 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? LyleB 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think Michael Moore does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--Aschlafly 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) LyleB 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know who you're quoting "Doctor", but your name fits the mold of a liberal appearing to have authority that he doesn't really have. See point 3 in liberal style.--Aschlafly 15:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm quoting LyleB who said "I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals." And I'm sorry, Aschlafly.... I simply pointed out that with one simply response, everything I said was left alone. On top of that, I find your use of quotation marks around my name rather patronizing. Would it be appropriate for me to address you as Conservapedia's resident "lawyer?" Of course not, and that's why I would not do such a thing. On top of the matter, I never onced claimed to have any authority other than being a party to a debate in which no debate is actually taking place because the other party claimed victory before the start. And if we want to talk about the so called Liberal Style, how about number 23? You seem to revel in constant mockery Liberals, which translates to anyone you disagree with, no matter what their true opinions. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 15:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, DoctorCB, I'm new here, and don't know much about running debates. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I won't back down from my conservative principles. If there is a consensus that I am in the wrong, I will stop editing this page. LyleB

Not at all Sir, I nevel meant to imply that you do back down from your principles, I had no umbridge with you, and I would never ask that you stop editing with the dictates of your worldview. I would also like to point out that no matter what the popular opnion, there is rarely ever a wrong point in an open minded debate, simply one you don't agree with. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 16:02, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

ah yes, more craaaaaaziness

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though. AdenJ 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Suggestion

"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --RossC 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? LyleB 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Good lordy

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --_transResident Transfan^form! 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberals did. They taught the Piltdown Man in public school for decades.--Aschlafly 21:28, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, key word: did, as in "we don't anymore". Piltdown Man was just a nasty trick perpetrated by someone in the scientific community, and they got caught. Nebraska Man was an honest mistake, as humans and pigs do have similar teeth, and that even was resolved. This article declares that liberals still believe both of them, and this is simply not true. --_transResident Transfan^form! 21:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, ha ha ha, liberals just misled an entire generation of public school students by forcing them to accept the Piltdown Man as true to get high scores on exams. The article doesn't say liberals still believe this untruth, but they surely did for nearly a half century and they never apologized for misleading so many students.--Aschlafly 21:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

You act like liberals had known it was false the whole time. Only a few people did at the time, and they didn't want this taught. --_transResident Transfan^form! 21:46, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Let us ignore the Liberals and their Lies

Once again the Liberals ignore their own Liberal gullibility in this talk page. Making full use of their arsenal of Liberal tricks and Liberal tools, the Liberals wish to engage us, to prevent us from spending precious time in building this fine American Encyclopedia. While the Liberal engages in obstructionist tactics, we take it all in and attempt to reason with the Liberal. Our counter argument is based on the premise that a Liberal has rational, justifiable beliefs, but this Liberal logic will not be entertained on this encyclopedia, and if you don't like you can get out. BS BS 16:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

That is the most paranoid, nasty and downright scariest thing I have ever read. Perhaps more meds? Look, BS, I am no liberal but the list as it stands is mostly made up of peoples beliefs, not peoples gullibilty. It is the fundamental flaw of the whole article. Some people actually dont believe in God nor atheists. Liberal Logic? These terms make no sense AdenJ 19:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, we could fill Giant Stadium with liberals who say "I am no liberal." See point 1 in liberal denial. I'm bet you support censorship of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded abortion, and Barack Obama for president. If you don't think that's liberal, then you're inventing your own meaning of the word.--Aschlafly 21:27, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

You know nothing about me so quit your accusations. AdenJ 21:39, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Instead of your wild accusations why not focus on the issues I brought up on the article? AdenJ 21:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

"I'm bet " -> I'm hope you teach your homeschool classes to write better than that. AliceBG 21:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm bet you get called on that as Liberal Style re: Mockery (despite the fact Aschlafly corrects others grammer all the time as an attempt to discredit others) then blocked. AdenJ 21:52, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm bet you may be right. I'm also bet that I'm not going to be all that I'm crushed about it. AliceBG 21:55, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Mockery. Another example of the detestable Liberal Style. Fellows, either help build this fine American encyclopedia or get out. If you don't like it you can just get out. BradleySaunderson 17:15, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The earlier version of the article wasn't clear why such positions were gullible, I have made the article more clear to explain why such views are gullible --  User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't you see you are playing into the Liberals hands Deborah? These Liberals don't deserve your kindness. Let us ignore their Liberalism. BradleySaunderson 17:48, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I think a lot of it is false liberal outrage, a tactic which they often use to attack conservatives. LyleB 17:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Exactly LyleB! The Liberals on this site, detestable and wicked and evil as they are, constantly try to waylay this project to make it fit their sick Liberal goals. These Liberals should be banned en masse. BradleySaunderson 17:56, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The Obama media flap over Islam

Obama is not a Muslim, although his father may have been. Insight magazine uncovered a plot by the Clinton campaign to smear him; they had to fire 2 or 3 staffers after being exposed. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Piltdown man

Why do you keep changing it Asachlafly? It wasnt liberals the believed in piltdown. It was all scientists (at least all that believed in evolution). Not JUST liberals. Where is your reference? AdenJ 23:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, just because carter says he saw a UFO doesnt mean he believes in intelligent life in outer space. He saw a Unidentified Flying saucer (or at least something he could not identify). Not all liberals believe in UFOs. this is getting ridiculous. AdenJ 23:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, you're not making any sense. No one claims that all liberals believe in this stuff. But many do, and virtually all liberals have fallen for several of the items listed.--Aschlafly 23:59, 2 May 2008 (EDT)u

Aschlafly, it is you that are not making sense. Evolutionists believed in the Piltdown man. Everyone except those who dont believe in evolution believed so you entry makes no sense unless you change it to evolutionists. Secondly your entry on UFO's states one person who says he saw something. AdenJ 00:02, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

UFOs?

Could you give me even a shread of evidence that it is only/predominently "Liberals" that believe to have seen UFOs? By and large, it seems to me anyway, people in less populated area claim to see UFOs far more often. It is well noted that the further you get away from "Big City Elites" the more conservative the population is. Look were all the Red vs Blue States are. It is actually more likly that somewho votes Republican would be a person to see a UFO. DanielB

Here is a map of UFO sightings they tend to be on the Western side of America mostly "New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the three coastal states and Nevada" out of these 9 only 3 returned Democrat in the last presidential election. DanielB 00:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Thats a very good point. I suggest the entry be removed and added to the jimmy carter page (if not already there) AdenJ 00:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Another perspective from the apathetic-liberal

Humans do contribute to "global warming", but so do a plethora of other things (ie. cows and volcano eruptions). I think that global warming is just a fancy name for pollution. +_+ Kektk 13:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

UFOs.. weather balloons and hallucinations at most. +_+ Kektk 13:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

But the issue is whether the human "pollution" is causing the earth's global temperatures to rise to destructive levels. There is a leftist agenda to increase government control, and limit energy consumption, which results in loss of jobs, which results in more government control, etc., etc.

Personally, I don't see human pollution causing a rise in the global temperature. It strikes me as kind of silly, frankly. The scientific data show that the earth's temperatures have always fluctuated, and there is nothing special going on recently. Last summer was actually mild, I thought.

As to UFOs, liberal Jimmy Carter, his liberal scientific adviser Carl Sagan, and many other leftists were convinced there is intelligent life in outer space, and spent billions looking for it.--Aschlafly 13:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Friends in environmental club--which is very strange group of people--have told me global warming is loosely defined as such occurrences like snow in April and 80^oF temperatures in October. So, having a mild summer can be said, by the environmentalists, to be a result of global warming.

Human "pollution" is adding a minimal amount to the global pollution. Volcano eruptions seem to cause a major "rip in the atmosphere" compared to NYC, LA, and Hong Kong, which are populated with cars producing an insane amount of pollution.

Just some random "information":

• The moon landing was real (in my opinion, do you think it was real?)... no preexisting life there.
• We explore Mars with little drones, maybe we find some garbage, but that's probably just from one of our space missions because we always dump a lot of garbage in outer space.
• Distant satellites take picture of Jupiter and Neptune. I don't see any signs showing anyone/anything looking for us. +_+ Kektk 13:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, I'm learning. A mild summer can signify ... global warming in the views of some. That's news to me. As to life in outer space, I agree it's absurd but many liberals have believed in it with religious fervor, and wasted billions on looking for it. That's gullibility. The moon landing was real and brought back rocks disproving another liberal theory: that the moon had come from the earth. It didn't, and atheists have no plausible explanation for the moon now. See Moon Origins. But don't expect public school students to learn the truth!--Aschlafly 13:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So, what's your theory on it? A captured asteroid? That seems to be the most logical explanation, at this point. IndianaJ 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Kektk your intial argument against extraterrestrial life forms is we did not see fully developed aliens in the first 4 planets we stopped by? You ofcause overlooked the fact that any Carl Sagen often stressed that any extraterrestrial life form would most likly be just microbes (a bit hard to see from space). Also Christian apologist often harp on about the earth being in a habital zone and hence showing God's wisdom in that is were he put the plant with life on it (almost the equivalent to staring at fire and saying is it not good that the fire is hot enough to burn wood). Yet you list several plants outside a habital zone. These millions of dollars "wasted" to search for extraterrestrial life forms arn't to "find alians" it is to establish whether life is unique to earth or not?

Also as far as I understood the rocks from the moonlanding found that the moon was formed by the collision from the earth and some large objects, I could be wrong if you can give me evidence I would like to see it.

As for global warming whilst there are disenters, their existence dosn't disprove global warming anymore than the existence of people who support the hypothesis proves it correct.

Liberal gullibilty to me seems to be disagreeing with you on things you closed your mind about several years ago. ETLF and the Moon to support weakly supported YEC views and global warming to support your ... I have no idea why people find the fact that humans affected the earth we live on so hard to believe. It can't be economic views as some people are using GW to make piles of cash in the free market look at the companies making hybrid cars. DanielB 19:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Comment: We have moved away from the main point that you claim it is Liberals that claim to see UFOs please address my point under the heading UFOs?. DanielB 19:13, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying Aschlafly if it is wrong that the moon came from earth it must have been god? AdenJ 17:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, do your homework. Carl Sagan and many other suppossed 'leftists' believe in life in outer space but Sagan did not believe that they were visiting us via UFOs. Also I dont know why you are so sure there isnt life elsewhere. AdenJ 17:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is life in outer space absurd? Usual disclaimers apply. -CSGuy 17:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Life in outer Space

Its absurd to completely reject the idea that there may be life in outer space. We don't know whether there is or not. I am tempted to say this list isn't of Liberal gullibility, this article is worthless and should be thrown into the bin. It serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the prejudices of a very bitter man. HoraceM 18:52, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Comments on the above

Thanks for the comments by liberals demonstrating how they still think there is life in outer space. This confirms the point in the entry here.

One of the comments above stated, "Also as far as I understood the rocks from the moonlanding found that the moon was formed by the collision from the earth and some large objects, I could be wrong if you can give me evidence I would like to see it." You are wrong, and I did give you a cite: Moon Origins. But I don't expect you to pursue it with an open mind because, unfortunately, deliberate ignorance is classic liberal style. Liberals love saying things like, "I've never heard that," and then refuse to look into it.--Aschlafly 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh I think you'll find conservatives believing that there is life out there too. It is entirely possible. And you never answered how you know there isnt? AdenJ 22:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy you have sucessfully railroaded this talk page away from the article. Your claim that Liberal's claim to see UFOs (different from the possible exsistence of ETLF) exclusivly/more often than conservative something you still have not addressed is the map showing the distribution of UFO sighting remain largly in Republican states and mostly in rural areas were Republican voting is higher.

Also you tend to treat YEC as a default stance. You think that by shooting down alternative theories yours then becomes right. However the moon was created it was not placed there magically 6,000 years ago. It is older than that any decent amount of effort would find you that. For starters there are human culters that go back further than that. DanielB 21:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Comment Did you read all the talk abstracts? Most were supportive of the GIT and the first invited speakers on timing intial statement was that it is well established the Earth is 6.57 billion years old but dating the moon is harder yada yada... You have been selective with your choice of references and again showning yourself wrong in your claim scientist are censoring opposing views in that the disenters were invited to the conference in order to present the papers you cite. DanielB 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)