Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for the unlock. I added some bits about Galapagos and removed the misquote about Atheists in foxholes. I think the bit about white supremacists, as much as he may have said it, is not necessary to the article. It doesn't add anything- we know he's an Atheist from his presidency of the Humanist society and his jokes about heaven at a funeral. ArnoldFriend 12:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Given that the liberal vandalism happened over a year ago, can we unlock this? I'd like to add a bit about Cat's Cradle ArnoldFriend 23:04, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Old, disrespectful discussion

Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display, but the weakness of the writers. The sad thing is that its founder is one of the weakest writers here.--Jack 14:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

that was mean to say. you could of said it nicer. --Will N. 12:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

so it goes --Jack 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised to hear the Kurt Vonnegut said “there are no atheists in foxholes”. So I looked at the link given to support that quote, only to discover that the full quote was, “The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front." ” The context makes it clear that the character speaking (which we probably should not equate to Kurt Vonnegut as it comes from Hocus-Pocus which is not his most biographical novel) does not believe the truth of the claim “there are no atheists in foxholes”—the chaplain doesn’t know the truth of the front, which is where the foxholes are. If the site wants a quote to show that Vonnegut was respectful of religion, you could replace it with the quote from his last collection of essays, "if I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: 'The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'" (Quoted at NPR’s remembrance of Vonnegut here [1] )--Reginod 14:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

More recently Vonnegut wrote something much more pointed, which I tried to include as a counterpoit in this article However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " I [1] I was immediately deleted and the article locked. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but I do think this distortation is a diservice to Vonnegut's legacy and obviously contra-factual. Why include one but not the other. NothingVentured 19:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!"

Reginod, NothingVentured - You are correct. Kurt Vonnegut has been deliberately misquoted in this article to portray him as "respectful to those with faith," when in fact he's a noted critic and satirist of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This entry's obvious deceptions clearly show exactly what Conservapedia is: an intentional distortion of the truth, or more simply put, lies.

What's particularly laughable is the need of the editors to somehow dilute the fact of his avowed atheism by inserting a made-up claim of Vonnegut being "respectful of those with faith." Its almost an admission that being "with faith" is a form of disability or mental hindrance which the faithless must patronize. One has to think that somehow Kurt Vonnegut's mainstream celebrity status combined with his vocal atheism are a threat to Conservapedia and its cadre of weak-willed admins. Their solution? Lie about what Vonnegut said, and offer it as a tacit lesson to other atheists: You should follow this example and be "respectful" to people "with faith," by patronizing their irrational, unfounded, and ridiculous beliefs, because [Christian] religious beliefs are sacred, and should be accorded more respect than any other beliefs, regardless of merit.

Its no surprise that this article can't be edited. The truth about Kurt Vonnegut is too damaging to Conservapedia's purpose of Christian evangelism through disinformation. --TheDecider 19:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't edit war. Explain how it was "offensive", "disrespectful" and/or taken out of context. --Ed Poor Talk 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Ed, the complete Atheist in Foxholes quote is this: "The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front."" The quote comes from Hocus Pocus. I'm ok with leaving in the white suppremecist quote if you deem it worthy, but I feel that the foxholes quote needs work, as it's quoting him quoting someone he disagrees with. Also, I noticed you deleted my bit about Galapagos. Why? ArnoldFriend 12:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Casualty Figures are Incorrect

It has since surfaced that the casualty figures for the Dresden firebombing were greatly inflated by David Irving, who has recently been revealed as a Nazi-sympathizer, whose books on the subject were considered the definitive source on the Dresden raids for the 70's and 80's. I believe the revised death toll is between 20,000-40,000, and I'm positive that it's below 80,000 dead. As such, it should be changed as it is currently misinformation.--NeoCon4Life 16:24, 4 November 2007 (EST)

  • NeoCon/Liberal, I am growing weary of seeing post after deceitful post of yours! I invite you to make quality non-talk edits to this, the fastest growing educational website on the Net! This is not Wikipedia! Do not make unsubstantiated gossipy comments here! Thank you. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, he's completely right. The numbers used here are way, way off any accepted numbers. What happened in Dresden was tragic, but we can't overinflate it. I'll let this sit until tomorrow and, if no one has included a legitimate citation to back up that number, I will replace it with a properly cited number. --NTemple 23.39, 16 Dec. 2008(EST)

popular American atheist author

He's hardly a popular atheist author. Vonnegut is famous because of his work as a novelist, not because he was an atheist. His religion is already mentioned in another section. It's misleading because he isn't famous for writing about atheism or the subject of being atheist. He writes science fiction. I think it should be left at popular American author.--WinstonY 11:23, 14 January 2010 (EST)

We ought to characterize him properly. If his religious views are of interest, let's try to identify them. Is he a "secular humanist", an "agnostic" (uncertain whether God exists), or an "atheist" (positive that there is no God)?
In case some Conservatives have been mistaken in using the foxhole thing, we should get to the bottom of that, too. --Ed Poor Talk 11:36, 14 January 2010 (EST)
Secular humanist would probably be the best fit. He's described himself as an atheist and agnostic at times too. His religious views are definitely of interest but I think the section addressing them is more than sufficient.--WinstonY 11:47, 14 January 2010 (EST)