User talk:Conservativedreams

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, --Jpatt 10:39, 10 March 2012 (EST), and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, --Jpatt 10:39, 10 March 2012 (EST)!


is English your first language? Cmurphynz 09:58, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

No, actually Dutch is . But I've lived at U.S. for a while.

It's pretty good though considering.Cmurphynz 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)


i see you were wondering about some stuff you wrote that I deleted. I am not quite sure which of it was written by you, but you said it was about the crusades and colonialism. I have most of my reasons on the talk page at the article, but I'll summarise here anyway. The colonialism bit said something about colonialism usually being a good thing, and bringing technology and democracy and that. I would fundamentally disagree about it being better for the colonised population, for instance Belgian Congo, which was perhaps a little more extreme than some other examples, but a good example of the colonial mindset. On the whole the natural resources of colonised countries were used for the benefit of either the colonising government or companies from that country. Also if you look at the current condition of many Aboriginal and Native American people, you will see that colonialism has done very little for them, and that the effects were mostly negative. About it bringing democracy, that was very rarely the case, and it makes little sense to claim that you are bringing democracy if the majority of the people want you gone. And anyway the entire idea of colonialism strikes me as being fundamentally patronising and paternalistic; assuming that you must 'look after' the local population as they are incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves.

About the Crusades bit, did it say something like 'the first crusade succeeded because it was the will of God' or something like that? If it was, then that seems pretty presumptuous to assume that you know that. And while the argument could easily be made that everything that succeeds is the will of God, what was in the article seemed to indicate that that meant that it was morally right, and justified, which I think is a pretty hard position to defend given the behaviour of many of those involved.

Anyway, those were my reasons, I don't know if you agree with them or not, but it should give you an idea of why I got rid of them. Cmurphynz 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Ok, I just checked the history of that article and it looks like another one of the bits that I deleted was added by you. It was something about 'Muslims have always attacked Christians and the west, and the West has never attacked muslims'. That one I just removed because it was factually wrong. thanks, Cmurphynz 02:37, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

I replied to what you said, but I did it on my talk page so that it's all in one place.Cmurphynz 21:13, 29 October 2012 (EDT)


Done! --Joaquín Martínez 20:54, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Welcome here! --Joaquín Martínez 20:56, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Thanks!--Conservativedreams 22:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)