User talk:Bdor25

2012-07-26T13:34:12Z

Bdor25:

==Unblocked==
I disagree with your lone edit, but that shouldn't be grounds for a permaban, and I'm changing the block to 10 minutes. You said what you believed, and the block reflected poorly on us. I'm going to do what I can to fix that. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 23:56, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

:I notice that what I said remains deleted. I don't care about being blocked or not. I came to ask a question and have it answered: why do you constantly call him a liberal even though we have no proof of his political affiliation? I have seen no evidence from sources, even conservative sources, of his political affiliation. All we know is that he is an insane college student. I get the feeling that it is little more than a smear campaign against the opposing party, but if Andy has a good source for the information, I would very much love to hear it. I am disappointed that the knee-jerk response is to delete the criticism and ban me. It seems of censorship to me. --[[User:Bdor25|Bdor25]] 00:33, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

::Fair enough, I'll take a look, just a second. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:09, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Well, I re-added it but DamianJohn reverted it. I guess they don't want it discussed on the main page. I'll discuss the concerns with you here however, which I'd imagine should be alright. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:26, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Actually, that might have been because I messed up the edit and edited the page's old version, accidentally removing newer material. (doh) Probably just best to discuss here anyway for now though to be on the safe side. If Andy or others want to reply here I'm sure they can do so. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:29, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

==The Crossed Line==

Hello, Andy and friends. A while ago, I arrived at Conservapedia a staunch conservative Christian. However, after examining the arguments, I rethought my place in the world and came to a more liberal, atheist worldview. Since then, I watched from afar, believing that you were wrong, but still deserved to have your arguments duly considered. However, I came back to Conservapedia after noticing something very disconcerting that I felt must be brought up. It has to do with the the recent tragedy in Aurora, in which twelve people died in the premiere of the Dark Knight Rises.

I first heard about the tragedy from a liberal blog. The blogger and people in the comments were very sorrowful, to the point where one man toyed with the idea of starting a charity for the survivors of the shooting (something I could easily get behind). However, the conservative response, in my opinion, has been absolutely disgusting. Pundits and politicians alike lined up to give their opinions on the shooting, claiming that the shooting was a result of 'atheist values' (which is weird, because atheists don't have fixed, objective values, that's sort of the point), and that liberals were somehow responsible for the massacre. One article even had the gall to claim that it was a government hoax, an assertion backed up by no evidence whatsoever (and before you say anything, yes, I did read the article in its entirety). The point is, instead of grieving, many conservatives are using the tragedy to attack political opponents!

Naturally, I went to Conservapedia to see your take on the situation. "They may be misguided," I thought, "But Andy isn't a political jackal. He wouldn't try to capitalize on the deaths of twelve people." (No offense, by the way) But woe and behold, you did exactly as I hoped you would not, using the tragedy to attack liberals, atheists, and others, all the while quoting the very same articles I read and despised.

So, Andy and sysops, I have come to call you out for this. For supposedly moral people, you seem to have absolutely no shame in twisting the deaths of a dozen people, including a six year old girl, to support your own political agenda. How dare you blame the millions of perfectly sane and nice liberals and atheists, including me, on the horrible actions of a single lunatic. How dare you assert that we are somehow responsible for their deaths, despite having absolutely no connection to the shooter whatsoever. Have you no sense of honor or dignity? How low are you willing to go? --[[User:Bdor25|Bdor25]] 12:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:Bdor25, whether the shooter was a liberal, I don't know. It's not something I've personally looked into that deeply yet. However, I will say that I find concerning governments which are atheistic and persecute Christianity and other religions like China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, and Cuba. So I do think liberalism and atheism can be blamed for certain wrongs in the world. With that said, not all atheists or liberals are represented as such, just like not all Muslims are violent. Such a sweeping stereotype will inevitably be wrong. So like I said, I haven't yet formed an opinion one way or the other yet on the shooting - I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. But I'm not opposed to the idea that liberalism and atheism do cause problems worldwide.

:Look, I encounter many atheists who criticize Christianity of certain evils, or more broadly criticize religion. Do you likewise criticize atheists and liberals for attacking Christianity because of Westboro or other examples? Because it's the same thing occurring, just from the other side. Put the shoe on the opposite foot, and I could ask, "How dare you blame the millions of perfectly sane and nice [Christians and conservatives], including me, on the horrible actions of a single lunatic. How dare you assert that we are somehow responsible for their deaths, despite having absolutely no connection to the shooter whatsoever. Have you no sense of honor or dignity? How low are you willing to go?" My point is that the opposite accusations are leveled by atheists and liberals against Christianity non-stop. Why is it you take offense to them being leveled back in return? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:19, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

::The thing is, many of us don't support what people like Christopher Hitchens say. Religion definitely has its upsides as well as its downsides. While there are some fools out there with no sense of who's extremist and who's not, most of us aren't like that. You're just hearing the much louder minority. Much of my family is Baptist, and I get along with them just fine. There are just some self-righteous idiots plaguing the Internet.

::Yes, there have been many oppresive atheistic regimes. Mao Zetong, for example, tried to eradicate it entirely with his terrible "Great Leap Forward". However, there have been many oppresive religious regimes as well. The Catholic Church, for example, hanged anyone that insinuated that God may not exist. They threatened to hang Galileo for daring to assert that Earth is not the center of the universe, as previously thought. My point is, when any belief system gains absolute power, bad things happen, and Christianity is certainly no exception. That's the advantage of a democratic, secular society: No belief system is in absolute power, and thus no one is persecuted.

::"But wait," you're probably thinking. "Christianity IS persecuted!" Not exactly. Quite simply, Christianity has enjoyed a lot of power in our government for the last century or so, to the disadvantage of other religions. Because secular society is taking hold, Christianity is falling to the level of other religions. Because it is losing power, many interpret that as being persecuted. The thing is, most atheists don't about whether you worship God or not. You're perfectly welcome to do so in church or your own home. However, when it is constantly flaunted on us, a problem arises. Worship your God if you wish, but if we must follow laws based upon YOUR religion, not ours, than we have a conflict.

::Heading back to dictators, I can tell you with absolute certainty that NONE OF THEM ARE LIBERAL. A liberal supports some government intervention, but not enough to infringe on our freedoms or our rights. When governments do something bad, liberals are often the first to point it out. Many liberals have even devoted their lives to fighting oppressive regimes. Right now, in our government, it is the liberals that are suggesting we go to Syria and help the rebels overthrow the dictatorship there. However, I hear conservatives going on about how we should invade Iran, when an Iranian nuclear weapon is, at worst case scenario, five years away. It is the liberals that are suggesting that we do something about Saudi Arabia, which has a ridiculously stifling regime, while conservatives are more than happy to accept oil from them without complaint. Does that sound like a party of wannabe dictators? --[[User:Bdor25|Bdor25]] 09:34, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Bdor25

2012-07-26T04:33:45Z

Bdor25:

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Bdor25

User talk:Bdor25