Changes

:::King, please cite one factual error or one false claim I made in the article. You can't! :) I have decided to end the discussion on this page as it appears as if it will be unproductive. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:07, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

:::King, please cite one factual error or one false claim I made in the article. You can't! :) I have decided to end the discussion on this page as it appears as if it will be unproductive. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:07, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I never said you made a factual error (although you may have). A fallacy is a failure of reasoning, not of fact. And you are prone to make them. (You just used a straw man fallacy in your last comment) In any case, my point was not to denigrate you or any other user - it was, generally, that silly, overzealous, and disingenuous articles cut down the on the potential positive impact of this website. I think a debate page on Conservapedia is the proper format for this discussion (is it not? if not, what is?). Please, let's not turn this into a "flame war." --- JimmyRa, I agree that moral issues are not shades of gray, and I like that Conservapedia is straightforward on God, abortion, etc. That is not my problem. It's the petty attacks on liberals that undercut the serious criticism of liberal ideology. In other words, if we act like liberals are horrible in every way (an overreaching and often hate-tinged assertion) it undercuts the sober fact that they are flawed in the most important ways (a poignant and evident truth). And it also undercuts its role as a reliable teaching tool. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I never said you made a factual error (although you may have). A fallacy is a failure of reasoning, not of fact. And you are prone to make them. (You just used a straw man fallacy in your last comment) In any case, my point was not to denigrate you or any other user - it was, generally, that silly, overzealous, and disingenuous articles cut down the on the potential positive impact of this website. I think a debate page on Conservapedia is the proper format for this discussion (is it not? if not, what is?). Please, let's not turn this into a "flame war." --- JimmyRa, I agree that moral issues are not shades of gray, and I like that Conservapedia is straightforward on God, abortion, etc. That is not my problem. It's the petty attacks on liberals that undercut the serious criticism of liberal ideology. In other words, if we act like liberals are horrible in every way (an overreaching and often hate-tinged assertion) it undercuts the sober fact that they are flawed in the most important ways (a poignant and evident truth). And it also undercuts its role as a reliable teaching tool. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 10 May 2011 (EDT)