Difference between revisions of "User talk:Pokeria1"

Revision as of 13:48, September 19, 2017

Two quick points

Thanks for your additions to the Atheist hypocrisy article.

Two quick points:

1. Voltaire was actually a deist.[1]

2. Could you please footnote your additions HERE. Conservative 11:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

You're welcome, and to respond to the two quick points:

1. No, Voltaire was an atheist, fully. Timothy Dwight made that very clear in his speech, or at the very least that he fully intended to implement irreligion and atheism in place of religion. Deists, being people who believe in God, would not care if people were Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or heck, even Jewish or Muslim so long as they believe in a god, while Voltaire wanted to make sure all religion was destroyed, hence he was an atheist, not a deist.

2. Just did, and while I mainly based it on WND's "Dan Brown and the Voltaire Code" article covering that aspect, the truth is you can find that speech anywhere on the web, though admittedly in fragments. Pokeria1 11:35, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Two additional points: 1) Thank for adding the citation. 2) ""What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." - Voltaire[2] Conservative 11:47, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

You're welcome regarding the first point. As far as the second, Darwin also mentioned a "creator" in some of his works, yet he was clearly lying. And besides, if he believed in a creator, why would he want to destroy all religious beliefs, especially Christianity in both Protestant and Catholic forms, as well as possibly Judaism and maybe even Islam? Those all involved a creator, yet as made clear in Timothy Dwight's statements and even Voltaire's "Crush Infamie" claim, he wanted all of them destroyed, which is not befitting of a deist (which, really, had I been a deist, why should I care if they exist since they believe in a god anyways? No harm to me since at least we all share the belief in at least one god). Dwight even speculated that this was one of the reasons for the French Revolution. Pokeria1 11:49, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

I added the atheistic Darwinism point to the article. And seeing that Voltaire was a deist, I removed the material about the six stage plan. Thanks for mentioning the additional point about free speech, namely, atheistic Darwinism. It improved the article. Conservative 12:05, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

Was it really necessary to remove the six stage plan? Diderot also had a huge role in that plan, so at least keep it in for him, and Diderot is unambiguously an atheist (Voltaire is in the gray area largely because of claims he was a deist while people like Timothy Dwight made very clear he was atheistic). But if it needs to be removed, I guess I can't do a thing to stop it. Pokeria1 12:28, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

No offense intended. I reverted the Atheist hypocrisy edit. Want to keep it all examples of atheists/New Atheists. You can incorporate the material in the Voltaire article or create an anti-Christian article that incorporates the information. Conservative 12:19, 12 November 2014 (EST)

Problem is that Timothy Dwight explicitly refers to Voltaire's views as being "irreligious and atheism", certainly he promoted the views. Not to mention there is at least one work that flat out spells it out. http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm Pokeria1 12:28, 12 November 2014 (EST)

You could create an article called Anti-Christian deceptions and include this information in it along with other information. I can definitely see a need for such an article and it would be interesting too. Conservative 12:42, 12 November 2014 (EST)

Please read THIS. This is further evidence that Voltaire was not an atheist. Please do not add the Voltaire material into the article. Conservative 19:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)

I read it, and that doesn't make it any more correct.

And maybe I should remind YOU that I gave you plenty of sources for Voltaire actually BEING an atheist, like Sullivan County and a transcript of the Timothy Dwight sermon, made in July 4, 1799.

And BTW, Voltaire basically deeding a church doesn't mean he was any less of an atheist, just that he sees some use for it or more likely just wanted a show. Don't forget, during World War II, Stalin actually allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to actually be open in its religion, mostly as a morale booster than any actual personal belief in it, and used it as a sock puppet (this is what Moses the Raven represented, especially regarding Napoleon's influence, in George Orwell's Animal Farm), and he was a militant atheist. Heck, even China today has state-controlled churches rather than absolute obliterations of them outright, and that's despite China being as atheistic as the USSR (itself extremely atheistic). So no, we're keeping Voltaire in there. Besides, even his Conservapedia article notes that he died unsaved, and his own bedside nurse denies he actually converted at all, and she observed his final moments, so that's one error your link has. And need I really remind you that Darwin also expressed a belief in writing about a creator, something he made clear was a false belief specifically to con people into thinking he had any religious beliefs when he actually didn't? Pokeria1 20:05, 13 November 2014 (EST)

EDIT: Here's some sources just for you, and this time, actually try to read them: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm; http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/#LFe1HvZ0eTHxBBmT.99;

I don't believe those two articles provide a sound historical argument that Voltaire was an atheist. Some principles I believe should be used to make historical claims/arguments are given at: Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer and 7 habits of highly effective historians. Conservative 05:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

thanks for catching the conflation

Thanks for catching the Sartre/Russell conflation.[3]. Conservative 21:50, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

References

is this guy right or wrong?

I don't follow anime/manga, but is this guy right about CNN doing sloppy reporting about this issue? I just decided to err on the side of caution if necessary and just pull CNN claim. Conservative 15:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Can't say anything about CNN, but I do know PJMedia had an article citing this sort of thing as one, actually, a third of the reasons people steer clear of anime (half if one counts fanservice), and the guy who did the article is a huge Anime fan: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/10/17/6-reasons-why-people-avoid-anime/?singlepage=true I also had some encounters on the web about how moe characters and loli characters are controversial due to the implications of child porn. Pokeria1 22:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)

In hindsight, I see that you did not cite the CNN report. My apologies. Conservative 00:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Marx and Mass Murdering

The reason I'm not sure that "Mass Murderer" is a good description of Marx is that he never actually murdered anybody. If you look at the people listed under the "Mass Murderer" category, they're either people, like James Holmes or Seng-Hui Cho, who actually killed a bunch of people themselves, or else they were leaders or top officials of murderous regimes, like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro on the one hand, or Heinrich Himmler, Leon Trotsky, and Reinhard Heinrich, on the other. Marx doesn't fit into either of those categories. He certainly advocated violence, and had he been in charge of a government, probably would have had a bunch of people killed, but as things actually turned out, Marx, while he engaged in a lot of character assassination of his opponents, spent most of his time sitting in the library of the British Museum writing stuff and hitting up Engels for money. "Mass murderer" doesn't fit.--Whizkid (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

He was the founder of Communism, and not only was it his ideas that led to a LOT of the deaths in the 20th Century and maybe the 21st Century if we count Cuba, North Korea, and to some extent Southeast Asia, but he also specifically told the Communists to reenact the year 1793 (I'm not kidding, he actually said this. I quote: “There is only one way of shortening, simplifying, and concentrating the bloodthirsty death-throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new--revolutionary terror. . . . [...] Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. [...] We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it. . . .”). If that doesn't sound like an order to kill as many people as they want and thus qualify him as a mass murderer, I don't know what does. And bear in mind, I'm not even calling the Enlightenment people mass murderers, since while it IS obvious that they held enough anger regarding the Catholic Church to harbor genocidal beliefs towards it, they never to my knowledge explicitly told their readers to kill the church or anyone else, unlike Marx, who specifically made clear he wanted the Communists to reenact the year 1793, aka, Robespierre's Reign of Terror. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

I agree with you, Marx did call for violence, and he looked forward to a time when the working class would rise up and slaughter all their class enemies. (That quote comes from Marx's final editorial in his newspaper, when it was closed and he was forced to leave Cologne. But again, as violent as Marx was in his rhetoric, he didn't kill anybody, and he wasn't the leader of a state who did. States that adopted his ideas certainly did, and classing the leaders of those states as mass murderers are certainly appropriate. But it seems enough to condemn Marx for what he actually did do. In my mind, mass murderers murder people. But I guess it doesn't matter. I won't win this, and if I take it off again, you'll just put it back on.--Whizkid (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

Actually, I want to thank you for actually identifying where exactly it came from (I knew it came from correspondences between Marx and Engels because that's what Socialist Sucks! on Facebook stated and cited the Clairmont Institute for this finding, but I couldn't find it anywhere else), and also ask if there was a way to actually read that article, like an internet link or something? It may actually be necessary if I'm going to get the full picture and especially as a citation for the blog Marx and Friends (which is an anti-Marx blog) to give to them. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

It's actually a few quotes mashed together there. During the revolutions of 1848, Marx was the editor of a newspaper in Cologne called the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" (New Rhenish Newspaper), published by the Communist League. The newspaper generally took an anti-Prussian (Prussia controlled Cologne), pro-republican stance and was a big supporter of 1848, and called for a unified Germany with a constitution and universal suffrage. In 1849, in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions and the crackdown, the Prussian government shut down the newspaper and expelled Marx. so in the last edition, Marx published an open letter to the Prussian government, which can be found here:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm

That's the origin for the "We will not make excuses for our terror" quote. The "vengeance of the people will break forth...." quote comes from Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England" He's talking about how industrialization and English trade policy is increasing the difference between rich and poor, and that the English government doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the working class and warns. "If, up to that time, the English bourgeoisie does not pause to reflect—and to all appearance it certainly will not do so—a revolution will follow with which none hitherto known can be compared. The proletarians, driven to despair, will seize the torch which Stephens has preached to them; the vengeance of the people will come down with a wrath of which the rage of 1793 gives no true idea. The war of the poor against the rich will be the bloodiest ever waged. " You can find that on Project Gutenburg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17306/17306-h/17306-h.htm

The "There is only one way in which the murderous..." quote comes from an earlier edition of Neue Rhenische Zeitung, from the November 6, 1848 article "The Victory of the Counter Revolution in Vienna", about the retaking of Vienna, which had been in revolt, by the Austrian army. That quote is "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.", and it can be found here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

As for the "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793.", Solzhenitzn, in one of his books quotes Marx as saying "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. We'll be considered monsters, but we couldn't care less.", citing a Soviet collection of Marxist writings, but I can't find the actual quote by Marx, just Sonzhenitzn's quote. The closest I can find so far is from an interview Engels gave to a French newspaper in 1892, when, asked about the Alsace-Lorraine question, he responded

"I hope that the German socialist party will be in power in ten years or so. Its first concern will be to put the people of Alsace-Lorraine in a position to decide their own political future. Consequently the question will be settled without a single French soldier having to stir. On the contrary, a war between Germany and France would be the only means of preventing the socialists' coming to power. And if France and Russia in alliance attacked Germany, the latter would defend to the death its national existence, in which the German socialists have an even greater interest than the bourgeoisie. The socialists, then, would fight to the last man, and would not hesitate to resort to the revolutionary means employed by France in 1793."--Whizkid (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

Thanks. And hope that specific quote regarding the Reign of Terror and their not caring if they were considered monsters turns up in your search (since if he did cite a Soviet collection of Marx's writings, it should be in the place it was cited at). And anyways, this is where I found the excerpt: https://www.facebook.com/373757305985421/photos/a.373910375970114.102939.373757305985421/819295658098248/?type=1 And honestly, either way, it goes to show that whoever the guy who came up with the truism "whoever fails to learn their history will be doomed to repeat it" obviously hadn't conceived of someone like Marx, because he most certainly didn't fail to learn from history (he knew full well the French Revolution and especially the Reign of Terror was a major bloodbath), yet he STILL intended to repeat it anyways. Same deal with all those so-called intellectuals that came after him and even, in the case of the French Enlightenment philosophers, before him (though at least in the latter case, they COULD be argued to not know their history beyond thinking delusionally that pagan Rome was better than Christianity). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

Merry Christmas

Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Happy New Year

It's good to see you back. I had worried that my peremptory block would have chased you away forever.

I'm sorry I blocked you. Other, wiser heads prevailed and convinced me that I was wrong.

I look forward to seeing many more wonderful contributions from you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:17, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks!

You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Quick project

Dear Pokeria1: Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2014 or 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory? Thanks in advance, JDano (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2017 (EST)

I'll see what I can do. I took care of my home state of Georgia (there wasn't much else to update there, just adding a vacancy note next to Tom Price's name and changing the link from Henry Johnson to Hank Johnson since I suspect those two are one and the same), but I'll see what I can do about the other states. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Okay, took care of all states from Arkansas up to Georgia, except for Connecticut, since that remained unchanged (though I did cross it out due to the fact that it didn't need any changes and thus was essentially done). Pokeria1 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Could you please write this article?

Could you please write this important article: Atheism and ethics?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. Conservative (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

I'll see what I can do, but I do need directions regarding sources before I do. Obviously, I don't want to come across as talking out of my butt without at least some sources to back this wiki up. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, I put some sources below. Ideally, I would like it to be one of Conservapedia's flagship articles. So please try avoid making it a stub article. I have asked a few people to help. Conservative (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

I believe that User:1990'sguy will be helping you. Conservative (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Sources

• Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?

• Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?

• Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?

• Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality

• Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?

• Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict

• Atheism and ethics

Secular sources:

• Secular Morality

• The Moral Evaluation of Religion

Additional sources:

• God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality by Paul Copan
• Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality by Chad Meister
• The amorality of atheim by Rob Smith
• Can we be good without God? by William Lane Craig]
• Atheism and ethics and morality by Ken Ammi
• Atheist explanations of morality and common sense
• Does being an atheist interfere with being moral? by Lydia McGrew
• Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Thanks. Just about finished, though I fear that, even if not quite a stub, it may require significant work, since I'm not exactly that good in regards to giving multiple statements per source. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

IRC

Hello,
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B ^(TALK) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Bye!

JohnZ (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Nice try, you're not a mod and thus don't have the authority to throw me under the bus. Besides, we also listed the whole bit about conservativism playing a role in the counterexamples anyways, so undoing that edit is pointless, especially we have to cite all evidence, whether confirmation or not, to any argument, that being the purpose of an encyclopedia. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Of course I don't have the authority. There's plenty of people who do though. You've had a good run - never particularly funny, like, but you managed to slip in some silliness here and there. JohnZ (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

You know I just responded to your talk page, right? So it's pretty clear the mods think I can still be here (not to mention I just looked over your page, and Conservative and the other mods voiced no intentions of banning me or anyone who reverts the edits). Besides, I've made several contributions to actual articles, while you seem to stick with talk pages in a violation of the 90/10 rule, not to mention the few edits you have made to Conservapedia's articles have largely been lacking constructive effort. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

My apologies

Further research indicates you're likely for real. I was certain that Pokemon edit to Greatest Conservative Movies was parody. Appears you actually meant it.

Sorry again. JZ17 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

• Don't know why you are apologizing since you didn't seem to remove any of my edits, but apology accepted either way. And yeah, I do mean it. Wouldn't have added them in at all if there weren't some conservative messages in those films (that said, though, there may be some entries that need to be moved, but we'll get to that when that ship comes). One last thing, is there a reason why your comment for the edit included this link: https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sjsoqcokhvkgix/stuv/p1 Pokeria1 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! SamHB (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

I'm hesitant to do so, since I fear I'll become as bad as the mods on various other wikis or forums. I'll do it if I must, though. How long should the block last? Pokeria1 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

Galactic Empire (Star Wars)

So if you're a supporter of the Star Wars Galactic Empire, what do you think of the breakaway warlord factions from the Imperial Civil War such as Zsinj's Empire, the Pentastar Alignment, the Empire of the Hand, Eriadu Authority, and Greater Maldrood? Not to mention the Imperial Remnant and Fel Empire that existed afterward. KommissarReb (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2017 (EDT)