Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Blair and Iraq)
(Mitt: new section)
Line 348: Line 348:
:::: It was more than likely that Saddam would have developed WMDs had his regime been allowed to continue. Unfortunately some of the evidence used to justify (in what i think was a correct decision to invade iraq) was a little suspect. Unfortunately Barack Hussein Obama's withdrawal from Iraq gave rise to ISIS, which has undone much of the work that the initial invasion did. Obama should be impeached for wasting the lives of American servicemen. [[User:FFAF2|FFAF2]] ([[User talk:FFAF2|talk]]) 07:50, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
:::: It was more than likely that Saddam would have developed WMDs had his regime been allowed to continue. Unfortunately some of the evidence used to justify (in what i think was a correct decision to invade iraq) was a little suspect. Unfortunately Barack Hussein Obama's withdrawal from Iraq gave rise to ISIS, which has undone much of the work that the initial invasion did. Obama should be impeached for wasting the lives of American servicemen. [[User:FFAF2|FFAF2]] ([[User talk:FFAF2|talk]]) 07:50, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
According to Woodward's account, Bush concluded immediately after 9/11 that Saddam was involved in the attack. This is what triggered the decision to go to war. The WMD argument was deployed primarily to get French support. The CIA was convinced that the French had a psychological complex about poison gas as result of WWI. Perhaps they do, but it turned out not to be as serious as their anti-American complex. Bush's big mistake was leaving Tenet, Clinton's CIA director, in place. At one point, Tenet proclaimed that WMD was a "slam dunk."[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-26-tenet-interview_N.htm] But later he decided, not so much. Obviously, he was hugely wrong on one of those occasions. (It doesn't really matter which one.) He and the whole top level of the CIA should have been purged, which is what Tenet had done to Bush 42 appointees. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
According to Woodward's account, Bush concluded immediately after 9/11 that Saddam was involved in the attack. This is what triggered the decision to go to war. The WMD argument was deployed primarily to get French support. The CIA was convinced that the French had a psychological complex about poison gas as result of WWI. Perhaps they do, but it turned out not to be as serious as their anti-American complex. Bush's big mistake was leaving Tenet, Clinton's CIA director, in place. At one point, Tenet proclaimed that WMD was a "slam dunk."[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-26-tenet-interview_N.htm] But later he decided, not so much. Obviously, he was hugely wrong on one of those occasions. (It doesn't really matter which one.) He and the whole top level of the CIA should have been purged, which is what Tenet had done to Bush 42 appointees. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
== Mitt ==
I wouldn't have thought Mitt Romney would have a shot of winning at all! [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 20:17, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:17, 20 October 2015

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index

Random sample study shows majority of psychology studies fails reproducibility test, a central tenet of the legitimacy of science

A recent front page item at Conservapedia linked to an article debunking the way so-called "science" is practiced. Here is another example published in a left-wing journal that tries to frame the evidence of corruption in a positive way. In case you're reading, Sam, this is an example of what I meant when I referred to "the pseudoscience that leavens science". If Conservapedia is going to attack science, it might be helpful to give an example like this to show that the word "science", meaning knowledge with a high degree of certainty, does not apply to knowledge that is only supported by the evidence of empirical testing, ignoring Scripture, common sense and even reason, especially when even that empirical testing is never corroborated. VargasMilan (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Liberal-run websites got you down? 7 Conservative Alternatives to the Internet's Most Popular sites.

What do they say about Conservapedia? "There is a lot about beastiality." Awesome. SaulJ (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Liberalism and bestiality Exposing the depravity known as liberalism is awesome.--Jpatt (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Jpatt, haven't you realised this website is having a joke at Christian right-wing extremists' expense? Just read the comments section. I'm afraid this is an example of Poe's Law in action. It's worrying you can't recognise the difference. EJamesW (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

You spelled realized and recognize wrong. I'm afraid that liberal writers are never kind to conservatives, have you figured that out yet? Should conservatives be embarrassed? I am not. I am glad it was published. The websites listed are uniquely conservative, I didn't even know about ritely.com and I will be sure to register there. I am not so concerned with how they frame the article. I noticed that the comments were unflattering, big deal. --Jpatt (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
EWJAMES, I believe, comes from a nation where Commonwealth English is standard. He spelled realised and recognise correctly.--ColeP (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
Except that we are an American website. I am sure it is correct and proper at Commonwealthapedia but no, not here at Conservapedia. You have about 10% left until you're in violation of the 90/10 rule, Cole. --Jpatt (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
I thought this had been settled way back in 2007. Phil Rayment, an Aussie sysop not known for being liberal, used to revert American changes to his edits saying: Replaced your correct spelling with my correct spelling. You may not remember, but it was decided back then that edits by British English writers on non-American subjects, or in talkpages, were okay. In other words; we're both right, mate. AlanE (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (EDT)
Fair enough, I am ok with it. I was just being a smarty pants because I don't agree with the rightwing 'extremist' talk. --Jpatt (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
I generally have no problem with people being a "smarty pants"; I do it myself. A lot. But do you realise realize that this incident led to the blocking and defrocking of a longstanding (albeit annoying) user? I don't remember ever seeing anything spiral out of control this seriously and this quickly. We are all "smarty pantses" at times. But people should put away the banhammer when this is going on. SamHB (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Take a look at that user's last 20 edits, and then compare them to the 90/10 rule and to the substantive edits that most editors make here. Also, the block was relatively short compared to most.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Philip Rayment - good man indeed. Alan, please tell him I said "hi" if you speak with him. I recall that we disagreed about gun control, but he was rock solid in rejecting the theory of evolution.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Natural curiosity (What/whom are they talking about????) lead me to I was a Conservapedia Administrator. Interesting, sometimes disturbing read! It is nice to see that many things have changed over the last years (sometimes by change of the personal, I think), but it is annoying to recognize some patterns still in play... --AugustO (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
  • One lesson I learned from EJamesW's block and defrocking: don't undo vandalism to talk-pages, it won't count in your favor when the 90/10 ratio is calculated.
  • yes, EJamesW is annoying, as SamHB puts it. Andy, you may think that he is no loss. But every time you punish an editor under a pretext, it sends a chilling signal to the rest of us.

--AugustO (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2015 (EDT)

Hardly. No one is penalized for reverting vandalism. And the 90/10 rule has helped make Conservapedia such an edifying website.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
It's certainly edifying in that it presents an amazing picture of what America's top conservative minds are really thinking.
And the 90/10 rule itself, and specifically it's enforcement, are edifying into learning just what really gets Mr. Schlafly's proverbial goat.
For instance, I could be User:TerryH or User:Conservative, but if I asked, perhaps, "Hey, Andy! How's that FBI investigation going?" I'd be banned under the 90/10 rule. BernieS (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
BernieS, can you point out one factual error in the Conservapedia atheism article?
Second, as far as the initial post about Conservapedia's liberalism and bestiality article, unlike liberalism, conservativism doesn't have a bestiality problem. It is liberalism that has the bestiality problem. Unlike the liberal community, no leader of conservative political/religions organizations/movements have ever refused to condemn bestiality, no leading conservative entertainment networks promote bestiality, and there have been no bestiality chants at conservative events, etc. And the first bestiality rights organization was founded in liberal, secular Europe and not in the American Bible belt! And no atheist has ever pointed out a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism and bestiality article.
Liberals, I know your bestiality problem is quite embarrassing, but please do not endeavor to sweep it under the rug through censorship. Address your bestiality problem. The world's sheep, horses and pets will definitely benefit! Conservative (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
Conservative, before you accuse others of being embarrassing or cowardly consider this: A few years back a charity of your choice was offered $20 000 for you to debate. You refused because of your embarrassing cowardice and as a result, almost certainly, people are dead now who would still be alive if they received the money. Hang your head in shame.--ColeP (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
Did I say hang your head in shame? I meant block me and cover it up. Not as easy since the update is it? It would not suprise me if the recently lost data was due to you, Cowardservative, covering your tracks.--ColeP (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

ColeP, if memory serves and I think it does, I offered to have a mutually agreed upon third party do the charitable transaction in a verifiable manner, but some atheist claimed he was going to have some relative of his do the transaction and offered no reliable way to verify the prospective transaction. Needless to say that was unsatisfactory - especially since atheists are known to be tightfisted when it comes to charity (see: Atheism and uncharitableness).

Furthermore, the website editors of the website in question haven't been able to get a Wikipedia article on their website. And like yourself, they cannot find a single factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article.

By the way, consider using a browser with a spellchecker. You misspelled the word surprise. Conservative (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

One last thing, I didn't merely accuse the secular leftist community of having a problem with bestiality, I documented it using many reliable sources. If only the secular leftist community was not so perverse, then it would not have a problem with the sin of bestiality! Conservative (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

500 Internal Server Error

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@conservapedia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) mod_hive/5.0 mod_ssl/2.2.23 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at www.conservapedia.com Port 80

Am I the only one who frequently encounters the message above? --AugustO (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

Still getting lots of those (and according to http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/conservapedia.com it isn't my personal problem). I enjoyed yesterday's this site is down for scheduled maintenance, though the announced 20 min seemed to be a little bit optimistic.... --AugustO (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Use a faster browser and this will greatly mitigate the problem. Suggestions: Comodo Dragon is the fastest browser (faster version of Google Chrome). and this browsers is fast too: Comodo Icedragon (faster version of Firefox). Google chrome and Opera are pretty fast, but I think the Comodo browsers are faster. Conservative (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Also, HERE are 4 ways to make Comodo Icedragon and Firefox faster. Conservative (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Using Safari here, but I get that message all the time. Bringreaganback (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Using a fast browser, I haven't received the message all day. I think the new version of MediaWiki is making the website faster too. And when I was getting the message, a faster browser greatly reduced the frequency of receiving that message. Even using Firefox, I am not getting the message. I think the new version of MediaWiki makes the website faster.
Also, consider this: Today's Safari flops on Apple's new browser speed tests. Maybe this will help: Speeding up safari. Conservative (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Another suggestion: Use Linux as your operating system (probably require you to get a new computer if you have an Apple). You will surf the web faster and you will probably never get computer malware. It may make your editing of Conservapedia easier. If you need to use Windows for your PC software programs, then use a dual boot machine with Linux/Windows. Conservative (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

  • Such an error suggests problems with the server, not with the clients
  • Even if I used a lame browser (which I don't) or an outdated operating system (which I haven't) I should be able to access Conservapedia!

--AugustO (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Andy using a quality hosting service. Perhaps something needs to be tweaked.
Second, is it a regular occurrence or does it usually happen at a certain time period/periods? Conservative (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Andy, "A Permissions Error. In most cases, a 500 Internal Server Error is due to an incorrect permission on one or more files or folders. In most of those cases, an incorrect permission on a PHP and CGI script is to blame. These should usually be set at 0775 (-rwxr-)."[1] Conservative (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

I received this message from Andy: "I think I found and corrected the occasional access problem that User:AugustO was having. The suggestions posted about using better browsers was helpful - thanks."

Hopefully, this solves or largely solves AugustO's 500 internal server error problem and solves the 500 internal server error problem for others as well. Conservative (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

Yes, this seems to have eliminated the problems. It didn't seem logical to me to blame Safari or an operating system, as the problem is server-side and I had been viewing the site for a while without difficulty. No problems now. Bringreaganback (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
I merely said an improved browser greatly mitigated/lessoned the 500 internal server error problem for me. So I was being entirely logical as I did not say it eliminated the problem for me. I also suggested using an improved operating system.
Furthermore, I subsequently suggested some possible causes/fixes to Andy as far as the 500 internal server error problem. Conservative (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

First, AugustO is not the only person to have gotten this error. I've gotten it many times, and I'm sure others have as well. I've gotten it on multiple browsers (Firefox and IE) and multiple operating systems (Windows, Fedora Linux, and Ubuntu Linux.) Significantly, I got it at about 8:30 this morning. This is troubling for Conservapedia.

The reason that is significant is that Cons stated, above, that he received this at 10:04 on 3 Sept:

I received this message from Andy: "I think I found and corrected the occasional access problem that User:AugustO was having. The suggestions posted about using better browsers was helpful - thanks."

There are a couple of peculiar things about that assertion. The obvious one is that, if Andy did in fact correct some problem, the errors are still occurring, which is bad news. But, more peculiarly:

  • Why did Andy communicate this privately to Cons rather than posting it publicly here for all to see? I've always known Andy to be completely open and straightforward in all his communications. Did he actually make some change and communicate that fact privately to Cons while leaving the rest of us in the dark?
  • If Andy did not make any such fix, or did not make the claimed private communication, why is Cons lying about this?
  • If Cons is in fact lying about the site owner's behavior, does Andy, as site owner, have any remedy?

There are also some technical shortcomings in what Cons said above:

  • If the problem shows up on Windows but not Linux, that would probably make Conservapedia unique among web sites powered by MediaWiki software, or, for that matter, among all the world's web sites. It would be very sad if Conservapedia could only be viewed reliably under Linux. Windows, whatever one may think of it, is a much more common operating system.
  • People who know what "browser speed" means know that it will not affect these Internal Server Errors.
  • People who know how the TCP/IP transport layer handshake protocol works know that these errors cannot be provoked by minor timing glitches on either the client side or the server side.
  • People who know how Unix file attributes work know that "-rwxr-" is not a real attribute word, and that the word "0775" actually stands for "rwxrwxr-x". The cited web page does not contain any instance of "-rwxr-". This kind of "word salad" calls into question the veracity of Cons's internet research on other topics as well.
  • Sporadic instances of these errors, which this one clearly is (unless Andy has been sporadically issuing chmod commands), are not caused by incorrect permission on PHP or CGI scripts.

SamHB (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

Those repeated invidious suppositions serve no purpose in solving a problem but only in harassing the parties involved. I will respond with action I feel is appropriate. VargasMilan (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, if the server errors happen at certain intervals and a faster browser reduces the time to access the website, then a faster browser could reduce the amount of 500 errors that occur for a person. I do know that I had a much easier time accessing CP with a faster browser and had fewer 500 errors as well. SamHB, that you dare to question this matter shows you may not be reliable in other matters as well!!!!! Conservative (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, but the way, a person with multiple experiences to confirm a matter is never at the mercy of someone with a feeble argument! Conservative (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2015 (EDT)

From the popular tech website Ask Leo about 500 errors: "Try a different browser".[2] Ask Leo's Alexa ranking is 24,534 which means his website is one of the top 24,534 websites in the world in terms of web traffic according to Alexa. SamHB, anytime you want to offer an apology, I will graciously accept it. :)Conservative (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2015 (EDT)

There is no correlation between browser and intermittent 500 errors, such as we all get on this site. The site you cite is talking about the remote possibility that a bad client request is causing the problem. If that were the case, it would be consistent. It's also why the section is titled "There are some straws to grasp at" and finishes with "While it’s more than likely that these won’t work, there’s always a chance that they might." An intermittent 500 is purely a server problem, almost almost caused by insufficient resource causing an Apache thread to timeout before its caller is serviced. MelH (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
  • The 500's are getting more sporadic, so there is progress of sort.
  • I'm constantly irritated by the lack of technical competence on this site:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

—Arthur C. Clarke

We should be aware that we are working with advanced technology (albeit on a very basic level), and therefore neither confuse it with - nor depend on - magic or miracles!
  • We lost a week of edits this time, we lost a week of edits the time before. Why has nobody learned from the first time? Why weren't the back-up cycles shortened? There isn't much traffic here, it shouldn't be a problem.
  • The first time, the management was pleased to be given unexpected ways to recover some edits. This time, the management relied on these ways! What should only be a crutch, became the real thing. Any engineer should be repelled by such a procedure!

Just my 2 cents, I hope that I'm wrong, that back-ups became more frequent, etc.... --AugustO (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2015 (EDT)

August, I haven't lived up to your high standard of excellence, and I'm sick to my stomach about it. Can you find it in your heart to forgive?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for your kind words!

  • You haven't actually sinned against me, so, no need for forgiveness!
  • My "standard of excellence" isn't especially high, I just ask that an improvised patch isn't seen as an actual repair!

--AugustO (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

An Idea

Hey, If it is possible for the Site Admin/Andy to somehow enable videos embedding in articles then I think the content and quality of those articles could be greatly increased through the use of multimedia. This could help increase veiwership of articles, which would in turn increase editorship and help get the site to grow even greater than it already is. Those at wikipedia are already losing their editors to a vast array of more specialist wikis as we speak. FFAF (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Andy wants users to earn the right to upload pictures and the wikimedia software has permission levels in relation to this. This is so no salacious pictures are uploaded.
I looked into the embedding video and they don't have permission levels as far as embedding videos. So unfortunately, I don't think the video embedding is a doable idea. Conservative (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Sid Blumenthal/Texas

The MPR stories regarding Sid Blumenthal's Tea Party memo and the Texas counties currently both link to the same story on Tea Party Crusaders. Does someone have the correct link to the Texas one? ChrisBaker (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

I don't have that link, but Breitbart and The Blaze have stories on the same topic.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Have homosexual activists overplayed their hand??

Hard to see how holding accountable a publicly-elected official who is undeniably in contempt of a ruling from the highest court in the land is "overplaying" anything. What blowback has there been that has at all worked against the people demanding that a public official do the job she is legally mandated to do? SaulJ (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

The "blowback" is clear from nearly all the Republican candidates for president. Too early for polling, perhaps, but it's easy to predict how public opinion will feel about this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
They're just playing politics. A few months from now, most of them will have long since shuttered their campaigns and moved back into political obscurity. Also the claim that this is the "First time in history that an American has been jailed for believing in their conscience," overlooks, for instance, the incarceration of people who refused to serve in the military because to do so violated their conscience. SaulJ (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
The highest court in the land is not the Supreme Court, occupied by mere human beings, perhaps even by atheists, but is, as from the beginning of the world, the court of the judgment seat of God. The actions by this official in obedience to God in the face of her Supreme-Court-sanctioned imprisonment and the broadcasting of her personal life about the internet renews my faith that the innocent soul will remain unharmed by the malice of human agents and by the examination to the division of spirit and soul at the Last Judgment. VargasMilan (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, unfortunately, that's not what the Constitution says. I wonder: Would you give the same support to a Quaker who refused the draft, or a Christian pacifist who denied to give out gun permits? SaulJ (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
"Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, October 11, 1798. The Supreme Court decision is why John Locke said atheists should be regarded as second-class citizens. When they make affirmations to testify in a court of law or to serve in political office, without an oath and without the golden rule there's no way to bind them to an allegiance any higher than their or their party's self interest. VargasMilan (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

If the U.S. Constitution was pro-homosexual rights, then why were there sodomy laws in the 1600s/1700s/1800s/1900s in the USA? Thomas Jefferson said sodomy should be punished with castration.[3] When a homosexual soldier was discovered in the military, George Washington discharged him.[4] Washington did not advocate homosexuals in the military. Why weren't there homosexual marriages in the 1700s in the USA? Conservative (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

So we should have the same laws we had in the 1600s? Including legalized slavery and the disenfranchsement of women and non-whites? Is that the country you want to live in? SaulJ (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

SaulJ, you are intentionally sidestepping my remarks. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution promoting the notion of homosexual marriage as can be readily seen by the beliefs/attitudes of the founding fathers and the laws/practices of the time. The U.S. Constitution would have to be amended if homosexual marriages were to be made legal, but given the rejection of homosexuality by a large segment of the USA populace, this is not doable. Instead liberal judges are legislating from the bench and acting unlawfully. Conservative (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

Where, exactly, does the Constitution specifically address marriage? Also, while the Constitution doesn't specifically address marriage, it DID specifically condone slavery by relegating the enslaved to the status of 3/5 of a human being. But the country changed that when such an idea was no longer politically and morally tenable -- much like the idea of preventing marriage equality. SaulJ (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
Wow, we went from "the Constitution is above God" to the slanderous "the Constitution measures out human nature in fractional units" in eleven hours flat. You have exhibited the very problem with human law—it changes as the selfish interests of the moment change. God's law is different.
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
VargasMilan (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
So you don't eat shrimp or wear a nice cotton-poly blend ever? SaulJ (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
Ha-ha Saul, you're one of a kind. One minute a pious constitutional absolutist, the next a voracious anti-constitutional moral situationalist. One minute you insist you know nothing about the sphere of divine authority, the next you argue from the standpoint of a Hebrew scholar. You're all over the map and don't deserve a reply to your trolling, you deserve an award: blocked for five months. VargasMilan (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

flawed question, flawed challenge

"Using the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use, does Kulinski have proof and evidence that atheism is true?"

First, I'd like to point out that many of the encyclopedias' definitions of Atheism stray from the actual meaning of the word (I've already explained why, on the talk page of the article, Atheism is a religion). Instead of challenging Kyle Kulinski using the encyclopedias' definitions, how about challenging him, using the legitimate definition of the word? (It only has 1 accurate definition: "without a god".)

Second, "atheism" (or "godlessness") cannot be proven "true" or "false", because it is simply a label, as to whether or not a person believes in a god. It can be stated that: "It is true that Kyle is an atheist. It is false that Andrew Schlafly is an atheist. These types of statements can be proven either "true" or "false". Similarly, "Christianity" cannot be proven "true" or "false". Christianity is a belief that Jesus is the only begotten son of god, and that the Bible is true. Some things within the Bible have been determined to be true, and some things have been determined to be false. However, "Christianity" as a label, cannot be proven "true" or "false".

The challenge, instead, should have been: "Can Kyle Kulinski prove that there definitely is not a god?" To which, Kyle would say, "No", of course (because he's honest). He would probably counter-challenge with, "Can anyone prove that there definitely is a god?" (to which, the honest answer is also "No".)

"Can you prove atheism is true?" is a flawed question. Atheism doesn't make any assertions (it's just "not believing in a god"), so it cannot be proven true or false. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are atheistic, as well. There are, of course, "theistic Buddhists" (et al), but those philosophies are not religions, because they are not theistic, by nature.

Will the voice of reason be heard, here? Humanperson (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

See Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism, and I would suggest some more substantive edits. VargasMilan (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
First, I challenged him to find one factual error in Conservapedia's atheism article. He obviously cannot do it just like the rest of the atheist/agnostic community.
Second, I said encyclopedias of philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is arguably the most preeminent encyclopedia in the Western World and the world at large. And it defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. Attempting to water down the definition of atheism is a tactic of agnostic pantywaists who want to appear tough, but are merely faux atheists. Watering down the definition of atheism makes it largely indistinguishable from agnosticism and that is why quality encyclopedias of philosophy do not attempt to blur the difference between atheism/agnosticism.
Atheists/agnostics are often cowardly and I expect Kyle to chicken out just like Hen Jillete (see: Atheism and cowardice). But even if he was not cowardly (and I very much suspect he is), he cannot find a single error in the Conservapedia atheism article nor can he provide proof and evidence that atheism is true. Conservative (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

By the way, the question is not flawed. Atheism is flawed. Conservative (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

One other matter. The two strongholds of atheism are Europe and China. Evangelical Christianity is growing in Europe (see: Evangelicalism growing in Europe) and Europe is presently being overrun with Muslim refugees in crisis proportions. And in China, biblical Christianity is growing very rapidly. Atheism is doomed in the 21st century.Conservative (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
Answer to everyone. It doesn't matter how other atheists are defining atheism. Christians define Christianity in a multitude of ways. The actual meaning of Christianity is "Christ-like". The actual meaning of Atheism is "godless". I don't need to repeat the post - I've already broken it down for everyone on the Talk Page of Atheism is a religion. And I'm correct. Often, people don't like to know that you're correct, and will attack you for being correct, if you show them that they're wrong. Such is the case when I explain what atheism actually is, to someone who believes otherwise. It's not my fault that I'm correct - it's other people's fault that they're wrong. The full explanation is already available on the Talk Page. Feel free to read it and learn. Humanperson (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

See: Atheism - etymology. You don't have a very complete understanding of the etymology of atheism. Conservative (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

A bit of a side topic, but Buddhism is definitely a religion, since it actually DOES feature supernatural elements, which is a huge requirement of religion. In fact, Buddha's trials even featured a demon he had to confront. Now, I can't speak for Taoism or Confucianism, but I'm pretty sure that at the very least, Buddhism does have trappings of religion and is not atheistic. Atheism doesn't even believe in the supernatural or the afterlife. They in fact believe that once you're dead, that's it, you're worm food, and humans don't have supernatural abilities. Sure, Buddhism doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, but it does believe in various supernatural elements. That aside, I do agree that atheism is flawed. However, I'm not one to advocate against wiping them out despite my being Christian. We showed the atheists mercy, and it resulted in us being killed or worse, so I see no reason to spare atheists. They even infiltrated the church thanks to the likes of Gramsci's march through the institutions. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
I don't believe I'm reading this. You're actually sympathizing with the mass murder of atheists?! VargasMilan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

"It's all but official: Tim Tebow to become a Philadelphia Eagle."

It looks like the headline may already be out of date. GregG (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

Curses, the enemies of Tebow rejoice.--Jpatt (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

New Species?

I'm on the fence with creation and evolution (I do tend toward old earth creationism however) so I found this interesting. What does the community think? At first I would have thought it was merely a form of ape however there were interesting characteristics. JohnSelway (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (EDT)

Are you similarly on the fence about God and the devil? The Lord created man in his own image on the sixth day. The Bible says nothing about another species of human. Any "evidence" to the contrary is nothing but lies and distortions by liberals and atheists. ChrisBaker (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
I'm a Christian old earth creationist. So no, not on the fence. Do you have anything else to say about this topic rather than about me? JohnSelway (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
Secularists need evolution to have existed in order to give natural sanction to their proposed sinful "evolutions" beyond divine law.VargasMilan (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
JohnSelway, read these resources: Paleoanthropology and Evolution and 15 questions for evolutionists. If you read those resources and are fair-minded, you will remain a creationist.
In addition, read the resources at Age of the earth. Conservative (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
Thank you, Conservative. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist but I agree there are some very valid questions and issues to be raised with the idea of Evolution, I just haven't given it much thought until recently (on this site as well as following the references). I'll let you know if I have further questions about this. It is an interesting debate and I approach it fairmindedly. Thanks. JohnSelway (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2015 (EDT)

Mohamed and his "cool clock"

Isn't this story just too perfect from the point of view of Obama and the Allah-loving media?[5] It reminds me of the rash of post-9/11 "anti-Muslim" attacks that turned out to be a hoax. What do you want to bet it was dreamed up by an Obamunist in the school administration? Sorry, liberal media. You've pulled this nonsense too many times to take your word for it. PeterKa (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

It is a bizarre story. The media and the White House exploited the story remarkably quickly for their own agenda. Bobby Jindal had some good comments about this episode at the debate.
It's looking more like a hoax bomb than a cool clock.[6] It wasn't a science project either. It was a mass-produced clock sold commercially at Radio Shack. PeterKa (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2015 (EDT)
User:Joshmowe has written a Conservapedia article on the story under the title Ahmed Mohamed. VargasMilan (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

Carly Carson

I think your headline is inaccurate. Shifting support would mean away from Trump and to Carly Carson. No indication he's lost any momentum. I classify it as new found support.--Jpatt (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

I think Trump dropped by 8 points, and Carson dropped by 5 points, while Carly gained 3 points in this poll (and gained more compared with other polls). The overall support for these mavericks seems to remain roughly constant, within 10 points.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

Donald Trump to avoid Fox News "for the foreseeable future"

I guess The Donald can't see very far in to the future. Six whole days. W.Sidney (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

Pro Aborts in Australia lead to Troy Newman being stopped on domestic US flight and stopped from entering Australia

Something has to be done to bring this hate crime to the attention of the general population. LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/australia-blocks-travel-pro-lifer-helped-produce-baby-parts-videos/). I think Obama might be ultimately behind this

He was banned from entering Australia because he advocates violence towards abortion providers, even calling on them to be executed. On the other hand it is hard to get a visa to enter the USA if convicted of a minor misdemeanor deep in their past. In my opinion someone convicted of shoplifting in the 1990s is less dangerous than someone who advocates murder. How exactly is Obama behind this?--ColeP (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2015 (EDT)
You have no evidence for that.VargasMilan (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2015 (EDT)

The Pope and Kim Davis

The Vatican is denying any support for Davis. Should the story on the front page be updated? W.Sidney (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2015 (EDT)

Kim Davis is an evangelical Christian and the pope hugged her, told her to stay strong and then they made a mutual pact to pray for each other.[7] The horse is out of the barn and in the next township. It's too late to retract now! Conservative (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2015 (EDT)
The Fox News Channel is pro-homosexual agenda, but no amount of its spin can change the basic facts of the story: the Vatican arranged for the meeting, and the Pope was supportive of Kim Davis.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (EDT)

Donald Trump prayer meeting and "Speaking in tongues" -- not so much.

If you're talking about the video of the prayer session, that wasn't "tongues." It was HEBREW, spoken/prayed by a rabbi. The kippa might have tipped you off. W.Sidney (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

Australia and gun control: Let's do the math

The media has been trumpeting the lack of mass shootings in Australia since a strict gun control law was passed in 1996, nineteen years ago. Is this really anything to get excited about? According to this article, the U.S. had six mass shootings in 1990-2009. The U.S. has 13 times (321.6/23.9) the population of Australia. So over a 19-year-period, we would expect 6/13 or 0.46 of a mass shooting in Australia. If only the SAT had problems this simple..... PeterKa (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

The United States has had more than those six as a result of a more crime-prone population. A better comparison is Australia vs. New Zealand:
"New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rates before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.
"The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth—including with many guns that were completely banned in Australia.
"While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.
"The only thing Australia's strict gun control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns. Of course, Times reporters don't have to worry about violent crime because they live in doorman buildings. For those who can't afford to live in fancy buildings in ritzy neighborhoods, bad journalism kills." — Ann Coulter, "Doing the research the New York Times won't do.", January 9, 2013. VargasMilan (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

They will probably never ban guns in NZ. If memory serves, they have many more sheep in NZ than people. So they want rifles to kill the wolves that kill the sheep. :) Conservative (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

Using Ann Coulter as a reference on Australasian gun laws is a bit like quoting User:Conservative on the prevalence of wolves in NZ.
Sorry Cons.
NZ has a gun ownership rate of about double Australia's but that does not make it "armed to the teeth". I may have mocked Cons' comment before, but he is, to a point, correct. NZ is a largely agrarian society, and if you have beasts you need firearms. To shoot the sheep - for dinner. To shoot the sheep - to put it out of its misery. Apart from the odd feral dog and those villains from The Wind in the Willows, weasels and stoats and the like, NZ has no predatory mammals.
If we are going to do the maths on Oz v US mass shootings since Howard's laws in 1996/7, lets multiply Australia's incidents by the population difference with America by 13 or 14 and see what we get. None Nilch Nada.
And let us check similar incidents elsewhere....schools, colleges, universities. Australia has had TWO deaths in one incident on campus since 1996. Multiply that by 14. (I have put two offspring through highschool, one of them through university (including a post graduate degree) without ever seeing an armed "security" official.) Why does America need armed security on campuses when we don't?
AlanE (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
  • I eagerly read Coulter's full article, which is here. As always, I defer to her superior knowledge of these matters. It sounds like Australia is a U.S. liberal's dream come true: A society that was once heavily armed, suddenly disarmed. If that didn't have any measurable effect on the murder rate, liberals have been barking up the wrong tree for a very long time. In answer to AlanE's question, I recommend this article. The big difference between crime in the U.S. and in Europe is drug-related violence. That means crack dealers shooting each other. As the LAPD puts it, "NHI" -- no humans involved. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
Your "eagerness" to read and agree with Coulter shows a complete disregard for academic rigor. What the hell does the LAPD have to do with what we're talking about? Maybe the next Harry Bosch will tell me. What bearing has Europe on the subject. We are supposed to be talking about Australia. The fact remains that since 1997 not one multiple shooting has occured. Yes or no?
AlanE (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
Peter, see Conservapedia's article Sudden Jihad Syndrome for mass killings and attempted mass killings by Muslim immigrants to the United States and elsewhere. VargasMilan (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

AlanE: The point you keep evading is that comparing crime trends in Australia in NZ suggests that even the most radical form of gun control has no measurable effect on crime. The number of mass murders since 1997 is of no significance. Why not? "Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn't even track mass murder as a specific crime category," as you would know if you had read the Coulter link. PeterKa (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

  • Here is a great idea: A "gun-free zone" around each candidate who supports gun control. See how long they can last without armed security and Secret Service agents. PeterKa (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
Good one, Peter. I would just add the only academic rigor Coulter is lacking is the rigor of the academy in pursuing liberal causes at the detriment to the reputation of the "science" they profess and to understanding at large. See Liberal hoax. VargasMilan (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

AlanE, your academic rigor comment was a genetic fallacy.

Second, academia actively discriminates against conservatives.[8]

Third, "An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during their first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills. Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt."[9] Conservative (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

I am a New Zealand citizen (not by birth but have lived here for most of my life) and can tell you NZ has strict gun laws, it is very very difficult to buy anything other than rifles and shotguns and even then those guns are only sold to people who have a gun license. Gun licenses are granted by A) taking a gun safety test B) having a clean criminal record (outside of non-violent crime) and C) having character witnesses sign on your good character. All guns must be kept locked up, cannot be carried in public and to get a handgun or automatic rifle one needs special licenses. NZ is not "massively armed" by any stretch of the imagination. Not even the NZ Police carry weapons! You'll never see an armed police officer on regular duty. JohnSelway (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
If NZ's gun ownership rate today is higher than Australia's was in 1996, Coulter's argument is still valid. NZ's gun ownership rate has always been higher than Australia's, as you can see here. PeterKa (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2015 (EDT)
Time magazine is also skeptical of the Australian law. When confronted with the evidence, Howard explains that it's not about crime. It's about differentiating Australia from the United States. So if the U.S. was to adopted a similar law, Australia might well abandon it. PeterKa (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

Election by endorsement tracker

Nate Silver is all over it.. W.Sidney (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Hillary and TPP

Is the real Hillary the one championed TPP as secretary of state, or the one who is now against it?[10] I'm going with Matt Drudge's line: "She's a head on a stick at this point." PeterKa (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

Hillary would never base her opinion on what would best offer candidate Hillary a "product differentiation" from President Obama's policy stance. I'm sure that she is being entirely and completely sincere, and that she was as surprised as we were about the negative qualities of the trade pact, qualities that she is too busy to specify what they are right now. And as surprised (as she described in her autobiography) as she was about the existence of Bill's White House affairs. VargasMilan (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
I don't know how much Obama has influence over the FBI email investigation and whether or not he is wanting to influence the investigation, but the more Hillary says she disagrees with Obama, the less inclined he will be to try to influence the investigation. I have my doubts that Obama cares about the Clintons given that he is to the left of them and the bad feelings caused by the Obama/Clinton Democratic nomination battle. In addition, Obama cares about his legacy and if he tries a cover up of the email scandal, it could come back to bite him.
This past week Hillary's poll numbers plunged again.[11] And if she is indicted, she can kiss her campaign goodbye. In the meantime, she has the drip, drip, drip of bad news relating to the email scandal.Conservative (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (EDT)
I assume Obama prefers Biden to "likeable enough" Hillary. Coming out against TPP suggests Hillary has given up on getting the Obama nod. Biden has run for president several times and never won any primaries or even created significant buzz outside Washington, where he was a senate committee chair. Perhaps Obama just can't resist a guy who notices how "clean and articulate" he really is.[12] But more likely, he sees himself as the future leader of the opposition. He certainly isn't planning to retire from public life the way previous presidents have. Another Democrat in the White House would cramp his style. As an Alinskyite, his heart is with Black Lives Matter. PeterKa (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

Paul Ryan and the "EDNA [ENDA] Bill".

Do you mean the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? 'Cause people usually refer to that as ENDA, not EDNA. W.Sidney (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the correction!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

image upload request

Hi, I have asked a couple of people to upload this image for me: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/images/john-key.jpg?itok=Z7xin1nk so I can add it to the John Key page that I wrote but so far no one has helped me. Can someone please assist? Thanks! JohnSelway (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

Cancel that - I see Aschlafly added a pic. JohnSelway (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

Democratic debate

It seems that Hillary "won" the debate by lying her a** off about TPP.[13] What was once the "gold standard of trade treaties" no longer measures up.

So the Democrats are hot for ending tuition. Cross country economic comparisons show no connection between a country's economic performance and its level of education. Almost everyone in college would much prefer to be married and/or have a job. But the Democrats have no idea how to create jobs. The best they dare to hope for is a country full people who never leave school. A generation of men who never become heads of families leaves us without a next generation, which, I suppose, is where illegal immigration fits in.

This was Bernie's time to shine, and it turns out he can't even beat Hillary in a debate. When your best line is something about how your opponent has been treated unfairly, that's not a good sign. I wonder if he was a ringer all along. PeterKa (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

Top weatherman blows the lid off global warming hoax

France's foreign minister came by and told the country's weatherman how do their jobs and help him with "climate diplomacy”. One man had enough.[14] PeterKa (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

"The Drone Papers"

The leak is credited to an anonymous whistleblower, not to Snowden. W.Sidney (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

The leak is still inaccurately credited on the front page. W.Sidney (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (EDT)
Revised, thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

Blair and Iraq

If I understand this article correctly, the Daily Mail thinks it's a scandal that Blair knew about Bush's invasion of Iraq a year before it happened. I think pretty much everyone did. Bob Woodward published Bush At War in 2002, which is same time period this article is talking about. The book explains in detail how Bush made the decision to go war with Iraq within days of 9/11. The media has created a fictional version of events centered on WMD and so forth. American Sniper shows a better understanding of what actually happened. PeterKa (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2015 (EDT)

That's not fair. If Saddam Hussein had renounced his violations of the no-fly zone as well as his harboring terrorists with a change of heart like Gaddafi's, might not Bush have given Saddam another chance unlike the way Hillary treated Gaddafi? VargasMilan (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (EDT)
This was around same time Bush said, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."[15] I'm sure he still had an opened mind, though. PeterKa (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
So you think Bush plunged the nation into war to exact a personal revenge? VargasMilan (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
It was more than likely that Saddam would have developed WMDs had his regime been allowed to continue. Unfortunately some of the evidence used to justify (in what i think was a correct decision to invade iraq) was a little suspect. Unfortunately Barack Hussein Obama's withdrawal from Iraq gave rise to ISIS, which has undone much of the work that the initial invasion did. Obama should be impeached for wasting the lives of American servicemen. FFAF2 (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

According to Woodward's account, Bush concluded immediately after 9/11 that Saddam was involved in the attack. This is what triggered the decision to go to war. The WMD argument was deployed primarily to get French support. The CIA was convinced that the French had a psychological complex about poison gas as result of WWI. Perhaps they do, but it turned out not to be as serious as their anti-American complex. Bush's big mistake was leaving Tenet, Clinton's CIA director, in place. At one point, Tenet proclaimed that WMD was a "slam dunk."[16] But later he decided, not so much. Obviously, he was hugely wrong on one of those occasions. (It doesn't really matter which one.) He and the whole top level of the CIA should have been purged, which is what Tenet had done to Bush 42 appointees. PeterKa (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2015 (EDT)


I wouldn't have thought Mitt Romney would have a shot of winning at all! JohnSelway (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2015 (EDT)