Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberals and friendship"

Revision as of 02:35, March 21, 2008

Liberals aren't friends of Andy?

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

I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- Fuzzy 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? SSchultz 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- Fuzzy 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Another take

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

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

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

I like this take, here's another one:

A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! SSchultz 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? Aboganza 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Die, heretic! SSchultz 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. Maestro 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Come on

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

Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.KarlJ 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. SSchultz 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.KarlJ 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. SSchultz 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Which statement. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.KarlJ 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--Aschlafly 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Please excuse me...comment fixed.KarlJ 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Reply to all above

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

I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?KarlJ 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)

So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SSchultz (talk)

Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term politically correct developed out of a liberal insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--Aschlafly 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. SSchultz 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.KarlJ 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Cites

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

Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --KimSell 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

This encyclopedia is really starting to baffle me. I made an edit to They, backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --KimSell 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to they, which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If Wikipedia allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.

So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --KimSell 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--Aschlafly 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --KimSell 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See Special:Contributions/KimSell. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags." When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Still no references. --KimSell 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Source

It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? SSchultz 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. Hammet 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Please think logically

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? BenSchumin 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Still no cites, Andy?

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --Jdellaro 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)

So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on my user page, in this tabula rasa environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-PhoenixWright 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. kitefox

As would I. Barikada 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. Humblpi 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is Bill Maher and Ann Coulter :) DLerner 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Misleading terminology

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Where is the evidence?

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.

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

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

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. Humblpi 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

We know Liberals all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your Liberal tricks. Reflect and improve! Koba 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a reflection of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. Humblpi 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. Koba 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. Humblpi 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...Maestro 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--Aschlafly 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Ostracize a republican

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. ד.לערנער 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

No one is claiming anything about all liberals. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-PhoenixWright 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Untrue, and I ought to block you for saying it - but I'm enjoying the delicious irony here too much. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values. Murray 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about all conservatives. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. Humblpi 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

" But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"

Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, Aziraphale 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove nothing whatever about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than Aschlafly can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. Humblpi 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Since it's been a while now...

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the imprimatur of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.PhoenixWright 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values. and it would be just as "true". You know, Michael Moore's book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to never concede anything to a liberal. Just some food for thought. ד.לערנער 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't fall into the tit for tat trap. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Huh? I was just saying that it should be an essay like Phoenix did, what do you mean tit-for-tat trap? ד.לערנער 22:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--Aschlafly 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". Murray 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--Aschlafly 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", yes. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, no. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. Humblpi 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their friends, (after all, that is the title of the article). The user formerly known as DLerner 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

No evidence for this article period

Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case whatsoever: They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system. Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.

Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.

Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at Bob Jones University you don't think they'd get flack?!

For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! ד.לערנער 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in university's, it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. ד.לערנער 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--Aschlafly 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from opinionjournal.com), doesn't provide any proof for this article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.

Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is opinion. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")

I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am The user formerly known as DLerner 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that liberals all too frequently do try to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see conditional love; compare unconditional love.

Unless your are trying to censor this opinion, you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).

To participate as an equal in this project, you must regularly provide trustworthy information. This includes information that casts doubt on "conservative opinion". --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' Urushnor 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--Aschlafly 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the original source, is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. Urushnor 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. Urushnor 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. Urushnor 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them opinions. I refer you to Deliberate ignorance: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." Humblpi 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. Urushnor 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how many of them there are. There is still no evidence. Murray 21:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Nonsense. Observations certainly are evidence.--Aschlafly 22:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)