Talk:Liberal tricks

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Liberal tricks as edited by Ronbu (Talk | contribs) at 04:56, July 3, 2015. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? DanH 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per American DSM-IV-TR

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

  • Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
  • Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
  • Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
  • Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
  • Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
  • Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
  • Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

  • Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
  • Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to anyone?SiggyF 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. SiggyF 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different opinions about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that I judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)


Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). HelpJazz 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

This page has issues too.

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests. A lot of these points are very questionable at best. Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the liberals here protested our entry Hollywood Values, and watch how often the liberals on television and in magazines push Hollywood. That isn't coming from God, and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--Aschlafly 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)
So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" Aboganza 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really tricks. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that all the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" are contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? Aboganza 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Liberal friendship

"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You can't be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? Barikada 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. Barikada 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)


This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

Maupiti 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint

  1. Win an argument through luck
  2. Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
  3. atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
  4. (me not learnded enough)
  5. ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
  6. death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
  7. it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
  8. no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
  9. Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
  10. No material thing is truly cool
  11. there is a shortage in piety
  12. disproving Christianity is for dummies
  13. kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
  14. (see #1)
  15. call someone a racist when they are a nepotist
  16. some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
  17. vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
  18. if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
  19. justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ Fuzzy|AFD 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

"25. Believing the poor are blameless because they have nothing and the rich are to blame because they have everything." I've encountered two exceptions to this mantra. One is if the poor person is a conservative such as many of the residents of Uganda, and the other is if the rich person is a liberal such as the limousine liberals.

Claiming expertise

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? Eoinc 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--Krishnapooja 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Your examples are deficient because they do not represent claiming expertise beyond one's specialty. Philip Johnson does not claim special expertise, for example, beyond his legal profession. Rather, he provides compelling arguments for people to accept or reject based on the validity of his arguments, not his expertise.--Aschlafly 09:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
How about Andy Schlafly, who claims to know more about medicine than MDs do? (Soooo getting banned for this one. NOBODY sasses the Schlafinator on how own blog and lives to tell about it.) --Gulik5 14:19, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Adding to the list

Hey! I've got number 20! "Uses logic instead of relying on what the Bible/Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson told them to do." Does that sound like a fair addition, you know, considering the fact that this article already makes your work with this encyclopedia look ridiculous and childish? Grow up, guys. No one's going to take the conservative viewpoint seriously if you keep cranking out this drivel. Jparenti 16:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

As mean-spirited as that is, jparenti, I agree. This "list" should be removed for making conservatives look bad. But watch yourself because language like that will get you blocked in a hurry.Bender2982 17:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)


this is an opinion piece, and should therefore be labelled an essay.

some points

here are some flaws in some of these arguements.

1. "when did you stop beating your wife?" is conservapedia now pro-domestic violence? or do we just think its an ok thing to joke about. 2."pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity? 3."live and let live-prayor in school" no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time (i.e. not in a special block of time where everyone must pray) that is fine. the issue liberals have with school prayor is when it becomes a state-sanctioned activity. 4."it doesnt hurt to try" Abortion. no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be. 5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.

i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by michaeljw (talk)

i dont really expect an honest reply is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. Bugler 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

sorry for not knowing that phrase. but you refused to answer the rest of my arguments and just blocked me. do you have a response to anything else i said? -user:michaeljw

Your account has been blocked for 3 days now. We're building an encyclopedia here, not sitting around in idle chatter. Add value, or go elsewhere. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:57, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

A response to his points:

2.pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity? One doesn't 'become' unintelligent; espousing atheism is one sign of a low level of intelligence and understanding to begin with.

3. no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time Classroom prayer is proven to have benefiots in terms of the application, conduct and achievement of the students. We do not advocate that all students have to pray. If they wish, they can use the short time allocated at the start of class to meditate, to think about their lunch, or even to have reveries about 'Professor' Dawkins: each to his or her own. But they have no right to deny the opportunity of prayer to others. +

4. no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be. But that is precisely what proselytising Liberals do, through their sponsorship of 'pro choice' and publicicing abortion clinics. The answer is pre-marital chastity. +

5. Environmentalists have a profoundly ahistoric and blinkered viewpoint. Climate has always changed; some species die out. That is the way of things.

Bugler 15:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Michaeljw, allow me to also add my comments. I tend to stay away from pages such as this, as I don't consider them encyclopaedic, but on this one I did add a couple of points including one that you have queried. I also think that some of the points on the page may not be well expressed, but have some basis for being there.

  1. "When did you stop beating your wife", as Bugler pointed out, is a well known example of the logical fallacy known as a loaded question. "i dont really expect an honest reply" is not the same thing; for one thing it's not even a question. It may be an example of poisoning the well, though.
  2. Contrary to Bugler, atheism does not equal low intelligence, at least as we normally understand and measure intelligence. This is obvious from the fact that some very intelligent people have been atheists. But then that is not what the page says. Rather, it appears to be (this is one that's not well written) rejecting the opposite idea, that anybody who is not an atheist has low intelligence. Atheism and theism depend on beliefs, not intelligence. Having said that, I will agree that atheism is at the very least logically dubious.
  3. If you put restrictions on praying, such as in school, then you have indeed stopped people praying freely.
  4. I'm inclined to agree with you on this one, although perhaps it just gets back to that poor wording I mentioned. I don't ever recall anyone saying "it doesn't hurt to try" in connection with abortion.
  5. This is the one that I contributed, and I don't agree with Bugler's answer. As Christians, we should look after the creation that God has given us, being good stewards of it. So I support the preservation of endangered species. However, much of the opposition to whaling is from an ideological point of view, and is not based just on preserving endangered species. The minke whale, for example, is only "endangered" by drawing a long bow. But do environmentalists say that we should not kill whales that are really endangered, but other whales are okay to kill (even if in limited numbers so that they don't become endangered)? No, they are against killing whales at all.
    Your argument is that there is no real comparison between (a) an unimportant thing like something "inappropriate" on television, and (b) a very important thing like the "slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species". Part of my answer is that (b) is not as important as you make it out to be. The other part of my answer is that (a) is more important that you make it out to be. The stuff on TV that many object to is stuff that helps lower the moral standards of our society, standards which forbid robbery, murder, rape, and so on. So keeping that stuff off TV would do a lot of good for society. But liberals have the dismissive attitude that if we don't like it, the solution is to simply not watch it. The point is that they don't apply this standard to killing whales because they consider that important, but dismiss our concerns that we consider important.

Philip J. Rayment 23:03, 29 September 2008 (EDT)


I just went through and did some capitalizing and changed a bit of the grammar. Nothing major but it was a pretty extensive edit. However, there were a few I just didn't know what to do with. Numbers 13-16, as well as 20 just don't seem They seem like they'll be good points if someone can reword them so they fit with their surroundings. I can't think of how this should be done, so hopefully someone else can.

I think the main problem is that, although they may sound ok when spoken, they're just too colloquial to be in an encyclopedia. JParker 17:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Honorary Degree

I'm curious about the inclusion of 'Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".' in the list. I work in academia and I realize that my sample size is not huge, and that, assuming the institution is accredited, anybody with an honorary doctoral degree can elect to use the title doctor - and figures such as Ben Franklin have. Nevertheless, rolling your eyes at someone who just has an honorary degree but who insists on "doctor" is usually considered the conservative position, rather than the liberal one, and in most cases the honorary degree system at most universities is a bunch of lib hooey anyway, tossing out degrees based on celebrity. While I'm sure that libs love to jump all over the rare conservative honorary degree recipient, discouraging the use of "doctor" by people that haven't really completed a normal course of study is really the conservative take. (I suspect that libs love using "doctor" for honorary degree recipients because they give someone a way to look way more qualified than they really are.) DaveB7 16:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree. The liberal position would seem to be the reverse of what's in the list - I feel it would be more along the lines of "Though this person has not completed the course of study to 'earn' the degree, this person has shown him/herself to be competent in this field, and is honorarily awarded the title in lieu of this." Of course, it's usually a popularity contest, as you mentioned. Marlowe 15:33, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
I think the history behind that comment is that liberals first stridently objected to my mother receiving an honorary degree (from Washington University), and then stridently objected to a few references to her as "Dr." shortly afterward. They protesteth too much. Meanwhile, there are numerous examples of liberals who never earned the rank of full professor, yet called themselves that, and liberals defended it. See, e.g., Obama.--Andy Schlafly 15:49, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
Cool cool. I've edited the line to make it a bit stronger and to avoid giving the impression that not calling honorary recipients "doctor" is the default liberal position, since they're more than willing to use it for their own. DaveB7 16:42, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
No, not cool at all, DaveB7. Your edit comment says fixing periods and caps, yet you were using deceit, and removed the word liberal as well, altering the meaning of the entry. Now I will be looking over all of your edits....and if I find that is your pattern, and I suspect I will....well, you know (or should know) what I will do. The default liberal position, BTW, is to always keep a double standard, applying one to conservatives, another for their own. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:09, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
 :( I removed the word "liberal" because as written, it possibly suggests that the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" question contains a liberal assumption, rather than just an assumption. The name of the page is "liberal tricks". It's not necessary for every entry that describes a trick to include the word liberal. My edit reason wasn't intentionally deceitful. I went in to standardize periods and caps, and noticed that the sentence has a bit of an awkward construction. It doesn't alter the meaning of the entry at all, it just avoids the question "what's the liberal assumption buried in 'when did you stop beating your wife?'" A little good faith, please? --DaveB7 17:45, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
I agree with the rhetoric used in accepting and promoting honorary degrees on a case by case basis varies based on the ideology of the person being awarded and the people who are not, but I meant that the idea behind the degrees is liberal. Marlowe 17:32, 5 July 2009 (EDT)