From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1|Archive 2 |Archive 3|Archive 4

Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"

At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.

Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.

This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.

This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.

In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth.

I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. Underscoreb 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course there are confused people. Christians who are political liberals will always be found to have small or very large and obvious, cracks in their theology. Currently, it is not possible to integrate Christianity into the Democratic political platform. If one is called into politics, or into working for a political cause or simply trying to vote with integrity, a Christian cannot support todays liberalism. A Democrat who claims to be Christian will inevitably be found to lack theological integrity and will be revealed as a liberal through and through. Let me make it clear; liberals liberate and if the moral disintigration of the United States corrupts the government toward oppression, then todays conservatives will become liberators (politcal liberals), revolutionaries in the name of truth!

If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. Underscoreb 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.

Much improved, thankyou. Underscoreb 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --Andy 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Why? Rob Smith 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)
It's because Fred Phelps is a liberal activist (see the discussion on the talk page for an explanation).
By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. Feebasfactor 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Different definitions of Liberal

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.Alloco1 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. J2xl 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? Underscoreb 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?Alloco1 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Pathetic Article

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.

I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? Underscoreb 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. Rob Smith 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. Underscoreb 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a stable version. Rob Smith 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

Liberal Failures

Rush Limbaugh had a section in the December 2007 Limbaugh Letter called "Liberal Failures". At, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator.

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

  • Economy/Taxation
  • Health Care
  • Law/Criminal Justice
  • Environment
  • Education
  • Immigration
  • Culture
  • National Security

Rush says "Liberalism doesn't work. It fails, every time it's tried." [1]

Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

  • Forced School Busing
  • Welfare
  • Luxury Tax
  • Alternative Minimum Tax
  • Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
  • Free Love
  • Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. [2]


  1. Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, Rush Limbaugh, The Limbaugh Letter, December 2007, pp. 13-15
  2. A History of Liberal Disasters Jeffrey Lord, The American Spectator, 11/6/2007

We could create a new page called Liberal Failures or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --Crocoite 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Denial of gender differences by liberals

"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? Alexjohnc3 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress?

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal:

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--PhineasBogg 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --PhineasBogg 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--PhineasBogg 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for removing this, Ed! --PhineasBogg 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)
The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --₮K/Talk 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? HelpJazz 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one!  :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --₮K/Talk 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. RandomishName11 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. HelpJazz 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called conservative, but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --GeneralGrievous 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH is rather conservative. It's fixed now.


Wait a minute. So, if the media has a liberal bias, wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit liberal airtime instead of Conservative airtime? Barikada 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Liberals control most media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--Aschlafly 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)
... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? Barikada 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. Barikada 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)


The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--Aschlafly 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --GDewey 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: --GDewey 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)
I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --GDewey 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)
The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". HelpJazz 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. HelpJazz 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--Aschlafly 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)
You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. HelpJazz 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the liberals will never be happy with this.--Aschlafly 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)
That's probably very true. HelpJazz 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --GDewey 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? HelpJazz 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)
My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --GDewey 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --GDewey 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)
So, should I change it back again? --GDewey 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)
I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at conservative, though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. HelpJazz 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

about liberals

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas". Thiudareiks 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. Underscoreb 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --Gulik5 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Dem damn dirty libruls!!!

Positive Liberal Contributions To Society

Are there any? --RJest 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

  • Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic
  • Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.
  • Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade
  • Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.
  • Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.
  • The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,
  • John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.
  • Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.
  • Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. Cal05000 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) Cal05000

    • Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? Underscoreb 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
  • I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more
Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think Benjamin Franklin supported

abortion???--Aschlafly 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to commit treason rather than put up with him.) --Gulik5 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. Cal05000 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) Cal05000

As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --Gulik5 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
How is Machiavelli in anyway a liberal? I believe his writings stand outside any political scale, and were written to do so. Also, liberal does not mean progress. On this site the 'modern meaning of liberal' is just about anything the admin want it to be, from Facism, to pornographic extroverts. --Entheogenicorder 15:50 28 August 2008 (BST)

Citation Request

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. HelpJazz 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[1]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[2]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. Urushnor 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical liberal deceit. --₮K/Talk 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D Underscoreb 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. Urushnor 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the link on Oxford's site showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's professor profile of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --ZachPruckowski 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)


Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. HelpJazz 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ad hominem generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) Underscoreb 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. Europeanunion 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --₮K/Talk 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D Underscoreb 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the Global warming controversy article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. Europeanunion 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --₮K/Talk 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

European logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) Humblpi 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of deduction; see also induction. --Ed Poor Talk 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ad hominem arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ad hominem arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. Europeanunion 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. Europeanunion 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is overgeneralization. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. HelpJazz 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. Europeanunion 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to liberal style. It fits in very nicely over there.--RossC 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. HelpJazz 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --Europeanunion 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Pragmatically what this encyclopedia needs is less obfuscation, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something Europeans and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --₮K/Talk 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. Humblpi 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs here is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between Internationalists (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as Internationalists see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong.
  • Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, certainly are not United States conservatives, and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.

--₮K/Talk 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. Europeanunion 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Personal attacks? On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American conservative encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --₮K/Talk 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) Europeanunion 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( HelpJazz 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks, and not apologizing for either statement when asked to; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --₮K/Talk 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ad hominem arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). Europeanunion 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --₮K/Talk 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)


As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. Shortcat

You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--Aschlafly 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.
Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?
Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.
It's amusing, given that Liberalism and Facisim are actually two absolute opposites on a political scale. In fact, Conserservatism is far closer to Facism than Liberalism is, so really this is just another of hilarious assertion.--Entheogenicorder 15:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)


Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --Ampersand 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

WBC is a "Liberal Organization"?

I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The Westboro Baptist Church is a liberal organization? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.

A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a liberal organization? This smells like political identification bias to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it must be liberal! --JBrown 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken liberalism even justifies a new appellation... hyperliberal, anyone? --Jamesmason 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. Corry 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)