Conservative

2007-03-14T03:00:27Z

Belaboo:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

* National defense and high military spending
* Return of prayer in school
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Overbearing, unilateral foreign policy
* Weakening or cancellation of social support programs
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion
* Favors reducing taxes, regardless of budgetary impact
* Sometimes supports deficit spending

Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.

About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:

 [[George Washington]]
 [[James Monroe]]
 [[Abraham Lincoln]]
 [[Grover Cleveland]]
 [[Warren G. Harding]]
 [[Ronald Reagan]]
 [[George W. Bush]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Earth

2007-03-14T02:34:25Z

Belaboo: /* Questionable passage */

==U. S. Customary units==
I don't know what Conservapedia's policy on units and dimensions is, but taking the lead from the "American" spelling policy, I have used U. S. Customary units rather than SI ("metric system") units throughout this article.

But please discuss, as SI units are more appropriate for scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 28 February 2007 (EST)

: To be blunt, using miles to describe distances in space is almost painful. However, it might make sense if the audience is mainly American to use both, maybe with a slash, or put the English unit in parentheses or brackets. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::Why is measuring space in the paces of a Roman soldier any more painful that measuring it in terms of two scratches in a platinum-iridium bar at Bureau Internationale de Poids et Mesures? (Yesyesyes I ''know'' it's really the distance light travels in 1/299142857.142857 seconds...)

::If inches, slugs, and poundals are good enough for the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter, they're good enough for me! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:06, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::('''Note''' for people who don't get my nerdy joke... either because it's obscure or because it's not actually funny... slugs and poundals are now-''very''-rarely-used English-based units of mass and force that were once taught to, maybe even used by engineers. The NASA Mars Climate Orbiter was an expensive space probe that crashed on Mars because some of the computer subsystems in it used U. S. Customary units and others used metric units and the software didn't convert properly... or something like that... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:50, 1 March 2007 (EST))

::: Well, it creates cognitivie dissonance when one talks about science using other units. It is somewhat similar to using SI to talk about halachah rather than using things like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke%27zayit Ke'Zayit] (ok, maybe not the best analogy, since everyone agrees on the conversion from SI to English). As for the Mars Climate Orbiter, you do know that that was just the FNORD Illuminati coverup for what really happened to it FNORD ? Joking aside, giving it in English units only just makes headaches for citation issues and forces people to make more conversions when trying to actually use the data. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:19, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== I've started a discussion of the metric and "English" question... ==

...one the [[Talk:The_Conservapedia_Commandments#.22Metric.22_vs._.22English.22_units_in_scientific_articles.3F|Conservapedia Commandments talk page.]]

I'd like to know how people want to handle units and dimensions in scientific articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==Explanation of the "trivia"==
I don't object to removing the trivia about "mostly harmless." That was the previous prank content. (I never would have inserted it in a general article about the Earth that I was writing from scratch).
I want to explain ''why'' I left it in.
*I like to "moderate, not obliterate." If someone is trying to make a point that I disagree with, but that is valid in the sense of being a widely held point of view, I may tone down overstatement or remove clearly inaccurate factual material or label it as opinion, but I try not to remove it entirely and I try to be sure that a reader will still understand what point was being made. In this case, I was trying to transmute prank content into valid content, rather than remove it.
*For the benefit of lurking pranksters, I wanted to show that Conservapedia was aware of what they were up to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection ==

I am going to similarly object to the protection of this article. Furthermore, you've added in what seems to be an unnecessary point. Since the original article didn't discuss formation issues, it seems to me that you added it in just so you could put the quote in. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:48, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:I do not think protection was necessary here. The article was not vandalised. Joshua simply edited out what he felt was an irrelevant sentence. I am unblocking this article, but before you edit it further, please discuss the changes you plan to make here. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:11, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection against evolutionist suppression of material - namely JoshuaZ ==

I protected this page. [[User:JoshuaZ]], who I believe is a vociferous evolutionist who supresses [[Young Earth Creationism|young Earth creationist]] material, edited out my material which stated the following: In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [http://creationwiki.org/Astronomy_quotes] I believe this material was reasonable to include and only an unreasonable person would delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative
*I don't know if protection is necessary against a single user, but due to the contentious nature of this subject, perhaps it would be best if it were protected so that potential edits would have to be discussed first. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:58 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Age of the Earth ==

I feel that the term "most scientists" is less accurate than "evolutionists" since the first term does not make clear just who believes that the Earth is billions of years old while the second does. The term "evolutionists" also makes it clear just why they believe--in order to make it so there is enough time for macroevolution to happen. Finally, I think the term "most scientists" is biased against creation scientists. Science is not supposed to be a popularity contest, though evolutionists cannot seem to remember that. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 20:49 1 March 2007 (EST)
*I see the issue with "most scientists" but I strongly disagree with the characterization "evolutionists." The "modern synthesis" or "Neodarwinism" of the 1950s (associated with George Gaylord Simpson) was partly about bringing the paleontologists on board. Before that time, paleontologists as a group were by no means convinced of Darwinian evolution. However, they certainly were in agreement with geologists about the geological time scale and the general age of the Earth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)
* Agreeing with Dpb, while someone who accepts biological evolution will almost certainly accept the age of the earth, they are not intrinsically connected either through science or theology. For example, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe minsitries (a prominent Old Earth Creationist ministry) accepts that the earth 4.5 x 10^9 years old but does not accept biological evolution. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)
**I don't think that bringing Hugh Ross helps your case. He clearly doesn't have Biblical reasons for believing the Earth to be billions of years old, he's simply compromising the clear meaning of Genesis, much like theistic evolutionists (though he obviously doesn't compromise as much as they do). [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 21:56 1 March 2007 (EST)
*** Whether or not Ross has a biblical basis isn't relevant to the point- accepting evolution is not the same as accepting the age of the earth, and we shouldn't confuse the two (I would incidentally agree that from a purely textual position I find Ross's position to be hard to defend), Also, commenting on "most scientists" actually science is decided by consensus in so far as what opinion has the most people in a given field matters, not in so far as whether they are right in some absolute sense but in so far as it indicates what most of the people who have studied the matter have come to that conclusion. Therefore, unless one spends a massive amount of time studying the matter, one should generally presume that the majority of expert is correct. I'm not arguing that it always is, or even that it is in this case, merely that it is a reasonable presumption in science and that is therefore relevant. (To use an example that may drive it home, if there are 1000 qualified scientists who say Xthe Sun and 1 who says ~X, when deciding policy, we generally presume that the 1000 are likely to be correct about X and will only prepare as a minor eventuallity for ~X). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:21, 1 March 2007 (EST)
*Many young Earth creationist organizations love to quote Barr on that quote, but I don't think Barr was even a Christian from what I've read. I'm not quite comfortable with it being here, particularly because many people who are scientifically convinced that the Earth is old (as I am) may see this and become convinced that Christianity cannot be true. I don't want that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Questionable passage ==

The passage "The fact that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun is taken by many Christians to be evidence of God's existence." is arguing that the anthropomorphic principle is attributed to a higher power. While there is a website that makes this argument, it does not mean that many Christians believe it. The continued debate about the existence of water and possibly ancient life on Mars also undermines this argument. If one was to look at the projected life of the Sun, in about 5 billion years from now it will become a red giant at which time places like Titan may sit in the goldilocks zone for the Sun. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I changed it to acount for your complaint. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 22:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, and it might be better said as "many theists" instead of "many Christians," as I'm pretty sure other religious groups have noticed the distance thing as well. Also, I'm not sure it's exactly accurate to say that the Earth's distance is the reason it's suitable for life, while Venus's closeness and Mars's distance are the reason they're unsuitable. There are also atmospheric properties that account for this--Mars' atmosphere is very thin, so it keeps less heat, while Venus' is thich and heavy, so it keeps much more. It doesn't undermine the argument, but it's reasonable to include it.--[[User:John|John]] 22:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I am new to Conservapedia, but am having trouble matching up your Commandments with the lack of evidence in most of the articles. For one, the comment referenced above reading "The fact that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun..." I checked this reference and it's clearly religious propaganda with no kind of reference or proof for this statement. Just because someone out there publishes something on a website does not make it worthy of "'''quoting'''". Most of the articles I've seen on this site have literally NO FACTUAL INFORMATION to back them up. Yet your so-called Commandments require this. From what I can tell, no one here has the right to be critical of Wikipedia... I can understand differing perspectives, but most articles on this site are way off base. And there's the fact that this entire site forgets the fact that America is just one piece of an enormous pie, and Christianity is not the only religion. -- Belaboo, 13 March 2007

Conservative

2007-03-14T02:09:05Z

Belaboo:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

* National defense and high military spending
* Return of prayer in school
* Stronger protection of 2nd Amendment rights (weaker gun control laws)
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
* Prevention of teaching sexual education, evolution, global warming, and other controversial issues in public schools
* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Strong, unilateral foreign policy
* Weakening or cancellation of social support programs
* Government restrictions on same-sex marriage and abortion

Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth.

About every 20-60 years, a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:

 [[George Washington]]
 [[James Monroe]]
 [[Abraham Lincoln]]
 [[Grover Cleveland]]
 [[Warren G. Harding]]
 [[Ronald Reagan]]
 [[George W. Bush]]

In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] or the [[Libertarian Party]].

== References ==

<references/>

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservative

Talk:Earth

Conservative