Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-06-07T10:38:10Z

Harebrained: /* NO! */

=YES=

For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist.

For example, the articles on [[autoeroticism]] and [[oral sex]] have been deleted and prevented from being created. Now, I can understand that conservatives find oral sex immoral, indecent, disgusting, sinful or whatever, but why not simply explain that in the article about oral sex, and perhaps support it with other facts, such as the spread of STDs through oral sex? Why pretend that oral sex and autoeroticism, something practised by billions of people, does not exist?

Some may argue that oral sex is simply not important enough to be included here. But this is not the case. In America it is a topic of heated debate, and many Americans have been politically persecuted for practising it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia some] as recently as 3 years ago.

And if you want to "protect" children who read this site, you don't NEED to describe the graphic details of oral sex, all you need to do is talk about the controversies surrounding it.

In my opinion, simply ignoring a topic that you dislike is a blinkered attitude. Pretending that something doesn't exist is not going to make it go away. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not devoting webpages to a subject is not a case of pretending a subject does not exist. As your ilk are so eager to point out, if somebody wants to know about a subject, they are only a couple of clicks away on the internet. We ''choose'' not to have pages about them. As for "protecting" children - what is wrong with that? The alternative is the unecessarily early sexualization of children, which many liberals and homosexuals seem happy to push. Why do ''you'' think a child should be educated about fellatio? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:: As I've said, any sexual topic can be presented in a euphemistic way that doesn't sexualise children. I don't think a child should be educated about fellatio. But if a child happens to stumble across the fellatio article, it can be written in a way that the child won't understand it and become bored of it. All you need to say is "Fellatio is a sexual practice that conservatives disapprove of. Fellatio causes X, is supported by Y, and opposed by Z" You don't need to describe the graphic details. Why would such an article corrupt a child?? Conservapedia also has an article on [[homosexuality]]. How come you think children should be educated about ''that'' but not fellatio?

:::You are making a blanket, false and rather trite statement that "conservatives" disapprove of things because they don't have articles about them or discuss them at the water cooler. That demonstrates very poor reasoning on your part. A healthy, active and satisfying sex life within marriage is a ''good thing'' and nothing to be ashamed of. But similarly, my wife and I don't rut in the supermarket because it is also a private thing for us within our marriage. As for the article on homosexuality, if I was the site owner I would delete that too. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Most conservatives ''do'' disapprove of autoeroticism and fellatio. In many conservative-dominated states in America the practice was punishable by prison until recently! You argue that conservatives see sexual practices as a purely private matter and that this is the reason they don't talk about them. But they don't. Conservatives have a long history of trying to meddle with the private sexual life of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick others] (even non-conservatives). Fact is, currently there ''is'' a political debate going on between conservatives about the legality of fellatio, and this encyclopedia fails to even mention that debate. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 09:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Notice that Fox said "within marriage", not just "in private". Your example from Wikipedia was not of something "within marriage". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

= NO! =

This is not your website, if you want YOUR website to discuss such matters, by all means do so, just don't link to it from here. Seeing as those who do own this website do not want to discuss such things doesn't make it 'blinkered' or whaterver you call it. This is known in Capitalism as the Protection of Property, and the owners of this website clearly do not want info on such things stored in their databases. You have no right to complain. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:14, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:The owners can erase factual articles by all means, but then making grand claims that "the truth shall set you free" is hypocrisy.

:I have every right to criticize Conservapedia. It's a free country. --[[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 06:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-06-07T10:37:44Z

Harebrained: /* NO! */

=YES=

For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist.

For example, the articles on [[autoeroticism]] and [[oral sex]] have been deleted and prevented from being created. Now, I can understand that conservatives find oral sex immoral, indecent, disgusting, sinful or whatever, but why not simply explain that in the article about oral sex, and perhaps support it with other facts, such as the spread of STDs through oral sex? Why pretend that oral sex and autoeroticism, something practised by billions of people, does not exist?

Some may argue that oral sex is simply not important enough to be included here. But this is not the case. In America it is a topic of heated debate, and many Americans have been politically persecuted for practising it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia some] as recently as 3 years ago.

And if you want to "protect" children who read this site, you don't NEED to describe the graphic details of oral sex, all you need to do is talk about the controversies surrounding it.

In my opinion, simply ignoring a topic that you dislike is a blinkered attitude. Pretending that something doesn't exist is not going to make it go away. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not devoting webpages to a subject is not a case of pretending a subject does not exist. As your ilk are so eager to point out, if somebody wants to know about a subject, they are only a couple of clicks away on the internet. We ''choose'' not to have pages about them. As for "protecting" children - what is wrong with that? The alternative is the unecessarily early sexualization of children, which many liberals and homosexuals seem happy to push. Why do ''you'' think a child should be educated about fellatio? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:: As I've said, any sexual topic can be presented in a euphemistic way that doesn't sexualise children. I don't think a child should be educated about fellatio. But if a child happens to stumble across the fellatio article, it can be written in a way that the child won't understand it and become bored of it. All you need to say is "Fellatio is a sexual practice that conservatives disapprove of. Fellatio causes X, is supported by Y, and opposed by Z" You don't need to describe the graphic details. Why would such an article corrupt a child?? Conservapedia also has an article on [[homosexuality]]. How come you think children should be educated about ''that'' but not fellatio?

:::You are making a blanket, false and rather trite statement that "conservatives" disapprove of things because they don't have articles about them or discuss them at the water cooler. That demonstrates very poor reasoning on your part. A healthy, active and satisfying sex life within marriage is a ''good thing'' and nothing to be ashamed of. But similarly, my wife and I don't rut in the supermarket because it is also a private thing for us within our marriage. As for the article on homosexuality, if I was the site owner I would delete that too. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Most conservatives ''do'' disapprove of autoeroticism and fellatio. In many conservative-dominated states in America the practice was punishable by prison until recently! You argue that conservatives see sexual practices as a purely private matter and that this is the reason they don't talk about them. But they don't. Conservatives have a long history of trying to meddle with the private sexual life of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick others] (even non-conservatives). Fact is, currently there ''is'' a political debate going on between conservatives about the legality of fellatio, and this encyclopedia fails to even mention that debate. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 09:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Notice that Fox said "within marriage", not just "in private". Your example from Wikipedia was not of something "within marriage". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

= NO! =

This is not your website, if you want YOUR website to discuss such matters, by all means do so, just don't link to it from here. Seeing as those who do own this website do not want to discuss such things doesn't make it 'blinkered' or whaterver you call it. This is known in Capitalism as the Protection of Property, and the owners of this website clearly do not want info on such things stored in their databases. You have no right to complain. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:14, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:The owners can erase articles by all means, but then making grand claims that "the truth shall set you free" is hypocrisy.

I have every right to criticize Conservapedia. It's a free country. --[[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 06:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Suicide

2008-03-25T12:13:08Z

Harebrained: /* Suicide is not a crime */

This needs some clarification, but I'm drawing a blank on how to do so. Killing oneself is not always suicide. For example, jumping on a grenade to save fellow soldiers is (in the case of mortal injury) killing oneself, but this isn't considered suicide. Any suggestions? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:*Killing oneself is always suicide. According to [[Durkheim]], a famous sociologist, he states that there are four different types of suicides. The example you mention above would be defined as altruistic suicide because it is killing oneself for the good of others.

Cut:

:although some radical Islamic Mullahs (teachers) claim that if it is committed as part of a religious war, the suicide will be rewarded in Paradise.

Too controversial for such an off-hand reference. Should be more than a subordinate clause. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-sacrifice and self-destruction==

Jumping on a grenade is not generally considered "suicide" but an act of self-sacrifice. However, storming a pill box has been described as a "suicidal charge".

Okay, let's get into it. Were the Japanese [[kamikaze]] "[[suicide bomber]]s"? Is strapping yourself with explosives, entering a crowded bus or restaurant and detonating them an "murder-suicide" or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut from article:

:Certain Islamist groups such as [[Al-Qaeda]], [[Hamas]] and [[Islamic Jihad]], however, say suicide is justified in attacks against infidels or apostate Muslims.

I have a number of objections to this sentence.
#What in tarnation does [[Islamist]] mean?
#Who cares what terrorists groups say - about ''anything''?
#Sources: Is there really a quote saying that suicide is a weapon for Muslims to use against non-Muslims? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::martyrdom is rewarded in the koran. it says that if you kill an infidel as a martyr you get the whole deal. i thought an islamist was a terrorist who uses islam to justify his acts.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Please write about this in [[Martyrdom]] or [[Koran]]. I'd also like to see more about the difference between [[Islam]] (the religion) and [[Islamist]] (someone who ''uses'' Islam to justify terrorism or other nasty things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll try. Im not even sure thats what an islamist is though.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No one else is, either. Wikipedia failed to address this problem and wound up with multiple articles like Islamofascist, Islamicist, Islamist, etc. We should have an article on the religion + ONE article on political ''use'' of Muslim religious ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

agreed[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== request for expansion.... ==

Any article on suicide would be incomplete without some mention of [[depression]], which is treatable. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 18:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Crime or sin ==

In an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Suicide&diff=next&oldid=370357 edit comment], MexMax asks "in what jurisdictions is suicide not a crime?".

I believe that here in Australia it's not considered a crime. So the "crime or sin" phrase in Australia would leave it saying that suicide is the ''sin'' of killing oneself, and whilst that would be true, many people who would not ''consider'' it a sin would still consider it ''suicide'', so the definition in the article would not satisfy everyone. On the other hand, CSGuy's edit would ''imply'' (although it doesn't explicitly state) that whether or not it's a sin depends on one's religion, whereas it is either a sin or not a sin regardless of what one believes about it. So his wording is not perfect either.

My dictionary says that suicide is the ''deliberate'' killing of oneself, yet there's no mention of that in the introduction. And further to discussions above about self-sacrifice, I think the distinction is that suicide has the ''intention'' of killing oneself, whereas self-sacrifice has the intention of saving others, knowing that one will die in the process, but killing oneself is not the intention.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:28, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal bias ==

We're not going to allow liberal bias in this entry, or any other here. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:I am puzzled. Is it "liberal bias" to state (as a simple definition) that suicide means the act of killing oneself, and then to move on to state that for a Christian it is a crime/sin? I thought it made more sense to deal with the simple fact before moving on to what might be seen as its interpretation in various religions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:47, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: It is [[placement bias]] to move that description to later, and dilute the first sentence. Placement bias is rampant at Wikipedia, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::Andy just to let you know I did delete the "sin" in the first sentence - but only because it was repeated in the second sentence (so the article had read "Suicide is the crime or sin of killing of oneself. This is a sin ..." - which is obviously redundant). However, Humblpi - I agree with Andy that you deleting both "crime" and "sin" was placement bias--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Fine - though as a matter of fact I did not delete the word "sin". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Thanks, Iduan, but I think we need "crime or sin" in the first sentence, both to avoid [[placement bias]] and because it may not universally be true that it is a crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok no problem, although I might rephrase the first two sentences if that's ok with you - I'll leave the first sentence as is, but I'll try to combine the second sentence better so it doesn't seem as redundant.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:22, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Done.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:25, 18 February 2008 (EST)

==Suicide is not a crime==

Let's be honest people. Suicide is not against the law in the VAST majority of countries in the world. This encyclopedia is supposed to report the TRUTH. Saying that suicide is a "crime" is simply dishonest, unless the Consevapedia is aimed mainly at the people of Syria and Turkmenistan. But of course it isn't; the vast majority of readers and editors of Conservapedia are American (just look at the logo). It is irrelevant whether suicide OUGHT to be illegal, fact is that it is legal in the United States and most other countries, and this FACT should not be distorted.

I have nothing agaist phrases such as "sucide ''was'' a crime" or "suicide is immoral", but saying that "suicide is a crime" is a lie, plain and simple. At least according to Conservapedias ''own'' definition of [[crime]] [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 20:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think they used to give you a suspended sentence in some places for a botched suicide attempt. There's a dark joke I'm reminded of "The penalty for attempting suicide is death" [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 21:01, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: If you acknowledge that it ''is'' a crime in some countries, how is is "dishonest" to call it a crime? Misleading, perhaps, but not dishonest, and not a lie. Changing it to "was a crime" when it still is in some places ''would'' be dishonest. And your comment about the American-ness of Conservapedia, although accurate, is unconvincing to this Aussie. Can you supply some evidence that it "is not against the law in the VAST majority of countries in the world". If so, I might add that into a footnote in order that the statement is clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:: It would be just as dishonest to call [[Soccer|Women's Soccer]] a crime just becuase it's illegal in [[Iran]] and a handful of other obscure countries. Failing to mention the whole truth is also a form of lying. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

: By the way, [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]], you need a remedial lesson in not taking God's name in vain. (I meant to post this last night, but I got caught by the night-time editing restrictions.) Fortunately, an admin cleared that up for you, but I'd suggest following the First Commandment around here. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 11:34, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::What are you on about? The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|First Commandment]] states "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work." It mentions nothing about using the expression "for Christ's sake". Neither do any of the other commandments. In fact, I could not find a rule in Conservapedia that forbids this. Besides, "for Christ's sake" is just a figure of speech in this context, and altough it has a Christian origin I did not use it in a religious context here, so i don't see why it's offensive to you. The English language is teeming with figures of speech of a biblical origin. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Suicide

2008-03-25T12:10:44Z

Harebrained: /* Suicide is not a crime */

This needs some clarification, but I'm drawing a blank on how to do so. Killing oneself is not always suicide. For example, jumping on a grenade to save fellow soldiers is (in the case of mortal injury) killing oneself, but this isn't considered suicide. Any suggestions? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:*Killing oneself is always suicide. According to [[Durkheim]], a famous sociologist, he states that there are four different types of suicides. The example you mention above would be defined as altruistic suicide because it is killing oneself for the good of others.

Cut:

:although some radical Islamic Mullahs (teachers) claim that if it is committed as part of a religious war, the suicide will be rewarded in Paradise.

Too controversial for such an off-hand reference. Should be more than a subordinate clause. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-sacrifice and self-destruction==

Jumping on a grenade is not generally considered "suicide" but an act of self-sacrifice. However, storming a pill box has been described as a "suicidal charge".

Okay, let's get into it. Were the Japanese [[kamikaze]] "[[suicide bomber]]s"? Is strapping yourself with explosives, entering a crowded bus or restaurant and detonating them an "murder-suicide" or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut from article:

:Certain Islamist groups such as [[Al-Qaeda]], [[Hamas]] and [[Islamic Jihad]], however, say suicide is justified in attacks against infidels or apostate Muslims.

I have a number of objections to this sentence.
#What in tarnation does [[Islamist]] mean?
#Who cares what terrorists groups say - about ''anything''?
#Sources: Is there really a quote saying that suicide is a weapon for Muslims to use against non-Muslims? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::martyrdom is rewarded in the koran. it says that if you kill an infidel as a martyr you get the whole deal. i thought an islamist was a terrorist who uses islam to justify his acts.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Please write about this in [[Martyrdom]] or [[Koran]]. I'd also like to see more about the difference between [[Islam]] (the religion) and [[Islamist]] (someone who ''uses'' Islam to justify terrorism or other nasty things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll try. Im not even sure thats what an islamist is though.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No one else is, either. Wikipedia failed to address this problem and wound up with multiple articles like Islamofascist, Islamicist, Islamist, etc. We should have an article on the religion + ONE article on political ''use'' of Muslim religious ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

agreed[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== request for expansion.... ==

Any article on suicide would be incomplete without some mention of [[depression]], which is treatable. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 18:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Crime or sin ==

In an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Suicide&diff=next&oldid=370357 edit comment], MexMax asks "in what jurisdictions is suicide not a crime?".

I believe that here in Australia it's not considered a crime. So the "crime or sin" phrase in Australia would leave it saying that suicide is the ''sin'' of killing oneself, and whilst that would be true, many people who would not ''consider'' it a sin would still consider it ''suicide'', so the definition in the article would not satisfy everyone. On the other hand, CSGuy's edit would ''imply'' (although it doesn't explicitly state) that whether or not it's a sin depends on one's religion, whereas it is either a sin or not a sin regardless of what one believes about it. So his wording is not perfect either.

My dictionary says that suicide is the ''deliberate'' killing of oneself, yet there's no mention of that in the introduction. And further to discussions above about self-sacrifice, I think the distinction is that suicide has the ''intention'' of killing oneself, whereas self-sacrifice has the intention of saving others, knowing that one will die in the process, but killing oneself is not the intention.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:28, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal bias ==

We're not going to allow liberal bias in this entry, or any other here. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:I am puzzled. Is it "liberal bias" to state (as a simple definition) that suicide means the act of killing oneself, and then to move on to state that for a Christian it is a crime/sin? I thought it made more sense to deal with the simple fact before moving on to what might be seen as its interpretation in various religions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:47, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: It is [[placement bias]] to move that description to later, and dilute the first sentence. Placement bias is rampant at Wikipedia, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::Andy just to let you know I did delete the "sin" in the first sentence - but only because it was repeated in the second sentence (so the article had read "Suicide is the crime or sin of killing of oneself. This is a sin ..." - which is obviously redundant). However, Humblpi - I agree with Andy that you deleting both "crime" and "sin" was placement bias--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Fine - though as a matter of fact I did not delete the word "sin". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Thanks, Iduan, but I think we need "crime or sin" in the first sentence, both to avoid [[placement bias]] and because it may not universally be true that it is a crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok no problem, although I might rephrase the first two sentences if that's ok with you - I'll leave the first sentence as is, but I'll try to combine the second sentence better so it doesn't seem as redundant.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:22, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Done.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:25, 18 February 2008 (EST)

==Suicide is not a crime==

Let's be honest people. Suicide is not against the law in the VAST majority of countries in the world. This encyclopedia is supposed to report the TRUTH. Saying that suicide is a "crime" is simply dishonest, unless the Consevapedia is aimed mainly at the people of Syria and Turkmenistan. But of course it isn't; the vast majority of readers and editors of Conservapedia are American (just look at the logo). It is irrelevant whether suicide OUGHT to be illegal, fact is that it is legal in the United States and most other countries, and this FACT should not be distorted.

I have nothing agaist phrases such as "sucide ''was'' a crime" or "suicide is immoral", but saying that "suicide is a crime" is a lie, plain and simple. At least according to Conservapedias ''own'' definition of [[crime]] [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 20:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think they used to give you a suspended sentence in some places for a botched suicide attempt. There's a dark joke I'm reminded of "The penalty for attempting suicide is death" [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 21:01, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: If you acknowledge that it ''is'' a crime in some countries, how is is "dishonest" to call it a crime? Misleading, perhaps, but not dishonest, and not a lie. Changing it to "was a crime" when it still is in some places ''would'' be dishonest. And your comment about the American-ness of Conservapedia, although accurate, is unconvincing to this Aussie. Can you supply some evidence that it "is not against the law in the VAST majority of countries in the world". If so, I might add that into a footnote in order that the statement is clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:: It would be just as dishonest to call [[Soccer|Women's Soccer]] a crime just becuase it's illegal in [[Iran]] and a handful of other obscure countries. Failing to mention the whole truth is also a form of lying. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

: By the way, [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]], you need a remedial lesson in not taking God's name in vain. (I meant to post this last night, but I got caught by the night-time editing restrictions.) Fortunately, an admin cleared that up for you, but I'd suggest following the First Commandment around here. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 11:34, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::What are you on about? The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|First Commandment]] states "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work." It mentions nothing about using the expression "for Christ's sake". Neither do any of the other commandments. In fact, I could not find a rule in Conservapedia that forbids this. Besides, "for Christ's sake" is just a figure of speech in this context, and altough it has a Christian origin I did not use it in a religious context here, so i don't see why it's offensive to you. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Suicide

2008-03-23T00:55:15Z

Harebrained: /* Suicide is not a crime */

This needs some clarification, but I'm drawing a blank on how to do so. Killing oneself is not always suicide. For example, jumping on a grenade to save fellow soldiers is (in the case of mortal injury) killing oneself, but this isn't considered suicide. Any suggestions? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:*Killing oneself is always suicide. According to [[Durkheim]], a famous sociologist, he states that there are four different types of suicides. The example you mention above would be defined as altruistic suicide because it is killing oneself for the good of others.

Cut:

:although some radical Islamic Mullahs (teachers) claim that if it is committed as part of a religious war, the suicide will be rewarded in Paradise.

Too controversial for such an off-hand reference. Should be more than a subordinate clause. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-sacrifice and self-destruction==

Jumping on a grenade is not generally considered "suicide" but an act of self-sacrifice. However, storming a pill box has been described as a "suicidal charge".

Okay, let's get into it. Were the Japanese [[kamikaze]] "[[suicide bomber]]s"? Is strapping yourself with explosives, entering a crowded bus or restaurant and detonating them an "murder-suicide" or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut from article:

:Certain Islamist groups such as [[Al-Qaeda]], [[Hamas]] and [[Islamic Jihad]], however, say suicide is justified in attacks against infidels or apostate Muslims.

I have a number of objections to this sentence.
#What in tarnation does [[Islamist]] mean?
#Who cares what terrorists groups say - about ''anything''?
#Sources: Is there really a quote saying that suicide is a weapon for Muslims to use against non-Muslims? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::martyrdom is rewarded in the koran. it says that if you kill an infidel as a martyr you get the whole deal. i thought an islamist was a terrorist who uses islam to justify his acts.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Please write about this in [[Martyrdom]] or [[Koran]]. I'd also like to see more about the difference between [[Islam]] (the religion) and [[Islamist]] (someone who ''uses'' Islam to justify terrorism or other nasty things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll try. Im not even sure thats what an islamist is though.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No one else is, either. Wikipedia failed to address this problem and wound up with multiple articles like Islamofascist, Islamicist, Islamist, etc. We should have an article on the religion + ONE article on political ''use'' of Muslim religious ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

agreed[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== request for expansion.... ==

Any article on suicide would be incomplete without some mention of [[depression]], which is treatable. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 18:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Crime or sin ==

In an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Suicide&diff=next&oldid=370357 edit comment], MexMax asks "in what jurisdictions is suicide not a crime?".

I believe that here in Australia it's not considered a crime. So the "crime or sin" phrase in Australia would leave it saying that suicide is the ''sin'' of killing oneself, and whilst that would be true, many people who would not ''consider'' it a sin would still consider it ''suicide'', so the definition in the article would not satisfy everyone. On the other hand, CSGuy's edit would ''imply'' (although it doesn't explicitly state) that whether or not it's a sin depends on one's religion, whereas it is either a sin or not a sin regardless of what one believes about it. So his wording is not perfect either.

My dictionary says that suicide is the ''deliberate'' killing of oneself, yet there's no mention of that in the introduction. And further to discussions above about self-sacrifice, I think the distinction is that suicide has the ''intention'' of killing oneself, whereas self-sacrifice has the intention of saving others, knowing that one will die in the process, but killing oneself is not the intention.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:28, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal bias ==

We're not going to allow liberal bias in this entry, or any other here. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:I am puzzled. Is it "liberal bias" to state (as a simple definition) that suicide means the act of killing oneself, and then to move on to state that for a Christian it is a crime/sin? I thought it made more sense to deal with the simple fact before moving on to what might be seen as its interpretation in various religions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:47, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: It is [[placement bias]] to move that description to later, and dilute the first sentence. Placement bias is rampant at Wikipedia, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::Andy just to let you know I did delete the "sin" in the first sentence - but only because it was repeated in the second sentence (so the article had read "Suicide is the crime or sin of killing of oneself. This is a sin ..." - which is obviously redundant). However, Humblpi - I agree with Andy that you deleting both "crime" and "sin" was placement bias--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Fine - though as a matter of fact I did not delete the word "sin". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Thanks, Iduan, but I think we need "crime or sin" in the first sentence, both to avoid [[placement bias]] and because it may not universally be true that it is a crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok no problem, although I might rephrase the first two sentences if that's ok with you - I'll leave the first sentence as is, but I'll try to combine the second sentence better so it doesn't seem as redundant.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:22, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Done.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:25, 18 February 2008 (EST)

==Suicide is not a crime==

Let's be honest people. Suicide is not against the law in the VAST majority of countries in the world. This encyclopedia is supposed to report the TRUTH. Saying that suicide is a "crime" is simply dishonest, unless the Consevapedia is aimed mainly at the people of Syria and Turkmenistan. But of course it isn't; the vast majority of readers and editors of Conservapedia are American (just look at the logo for Christ's sake). It is irrelevant whether suicide OUGHT to be illegal, fact is that it is legal in the United States and most other countries, and this FACT should not be distorted.

I have nothing agaist phrases such as "sucide ''was'' a crime" or "suicide is immoral", but saying that "suicide is a crime" is a lie, plain and simple. At least according to Conservapedias ''own'' definition of [[crime]] [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 20:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Suicide

2008-03-23T00:51:11Z

Harebrained:

This needs some clarification, but I'm drawing a blank on how to do so. Killing oneself is not always suicide. For example, jumping on a grenade to save fellow soldiers is (in the case of mortal injury) killing oneself, but this isn't considered suicide. Any suggestions? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:*Killing oneself is always suicide. According to [[Durkheim]], a famous sociologist, he states that there are four different types of suicides. The example you mention above would be defined as altruistic suicide because it is killing oneself for the good of others.

Cut:

:although some radical Islamic Mullahs (teachers) claim that if it is committed as part of a religious war, the suicide will be rewarded in Paradise.

Too controversial for such an off-hand reference. Should be more than a subordinate clause. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-sacrifice and self-destruction==

Jumping on a grenade is not generally considered "suicide" but an act of self-sacrifice. However, storming a pill box has been described as a "suicidal charge".

Okay, let's get into it. Were the Japanese [[kamikaze]] "[[suicide bomber]]s"? Is strapping yourself with explosives, entering a crowded bus or restaurant and detonating them an "murder-suicide" or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut from article:

:Certain Islamist groups such as [[Al-Qaeda]], [[Hamas]] and [[Islamic Jihad]], however, say suicide is justified in attacks against infidels or apostate Muslims.

I have a number of objections to this sentence.
#What in tarnation does [[Islamist]] mean?
#Who cares what terrorists groups say - about ''anything''?
#Sources: Is there really a quote saying that suicide is a weapon for Muslims to use against non-Muslims? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::martyrdom is rewarded in the koran. it says that if you kill an infidel as a martyr you get the whole deal. i thought an islamist was a terrorist who uses islam to justify his acts.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Please write about this in [[Martyrdom]] or [[Koran]]. I'd also like to see more about the difference between [[Islam]] (the religion) and [[Islamist]] (someone who ''uses'' Islam to justify terrorism or other nasty things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll try. Im not even sure thats what an islamist is though.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No one else is, either. Wikipedia failed to address this problem and wound up with multiple articles like Islamofascist, Islamicist, Islamist, etc. We should have an article on the religion + ONE article on political ''use'' of Muslim religious ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

agreed[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== request for expansion.... ==

Any article on suicide would be incomplete without some mention of [[depression]], which is treatable. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 18:39, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Crime or sin ==

In an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Suicide&diff=next&oldid=370357 edit comment], MexMax asks "in what jurisdictions is suicide not a crime?".

I believe that here in Australia it's not considered a crime. So the "crime or sin" phrase in Australia would leave it saying that suicide is the ''sin'' of killing oneself, and whilst that would be true, many people who would not ''consider'' it a sin would still consider it ''suicide'', so the definition in the article would not satisfy everyone. On the other hand, CSGuy's edit would ''imply'' (although it doesn't explicitly state) that whether or not it's a sin depends on one's religion, whereas it is either a sin or not a sin regardless of what one believes about it. So his wording is not perfect either.

My dictionary says that suicide is the ''deliberate'' killing of oneself, yet there's no mention of that in the introduction. And further to discussions above about self-sacrifice, I think the distinction is that suicide has the ''intention'' of killing oneself, whereas self-sacrifice has the intention of saving others, knowing that one will die in the process, but killing oneself is not the intention.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:28, 13 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal bias ==

We're not going to allow liberal bias in this entry, or any other here. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:I am puzzled. Is it "liberal bias" to state (as a simple definition) that suicide means the act of killing oneself, and then to move on to state that for a Christian it is a crime/sin? I thought it made more sense to deal with the simple fact before moving on to what might be seen as its interpretation in various religions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:47, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: It is [[placement bias]] to move that description to later, and dilute the first sentence. Placement bias is rampant at Wikipedia, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::Andy just to let you know I did delete the "sin" in the first sentence - but only because it was repeated in the second sentence (so the article had read "Suicide is the crime or sin of killing of oneself. This is a sin ..." - which is obviously redundant). However, Humblpi - I agree with Andy that you deleting both "crime" and "sin" was placement bias--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:13, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Fine - though as a matter of fact I did not delete the word "sin". [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Thanks, Iduan, but I think we need "crime or sin" in the first sentence, both to avoid [[placement bias]] and because it may not universally be true that it is a crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Ok no problem, although I might rephrase the first two sentences if that's ok with you - I'll leave the first sentence as is, but I'll try to combine the second sentence better so it doesn't seem as redundant.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:22, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Done.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:25, 18 February 2008 (EST)

==Suicide is not a crime==

Let's be honest people. Suicide is not against the law in the VAST majority of countries in the world. This encyclopedia is supposed to report the TRUTH. Saying that suicide is a "crime" is simply dishonest, unless the Consevapedia is aimed mainly at the people of Syria and Turkmenistan. But of course it isn't; the vast majority of readers and editors of Conservapedia are American (just look at the logo for God's sake). It is irrelevant whether suicide OUGHT to be illegal, fact is that it is legal in the United States and most other countries, and this FACT should not be distorted.

I have nothing agaist phrases such as "sucide ''was'' a crime" or "suicide is immoral", but saying that "suicide is a crime" is a lie, plain and simple. At least according to Conservapedias ''own'' definition of [[crime]] [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 20:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Suicide

2008-03-21T21:48:01Z

Harebrained:

'''Suicide''' is the immoral act of killing oneself; it is considered a [[sin]] throughout all of [[Christianity]], and a mortal sin in [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] tradition; it is also a very grave sin within [[Islam]].

==Scope of the Problem==
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the world, claiming over one million lives globally in 1999. The suicide rate in the [[United States]] in 1999 was 10.7 per 100,000; the homicide rate that same year was only 6.2 per 100,000. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth 15–24 years old. White males over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, about 65 per 100,000. Suicide rates are also elevated in some ethnic groups. For example, suicide is about 1.5 times more prevalent than average among [[native American]]s. While whites continue to have higher suicide rates than blacks, the gap seems to be narrowing in young males. Suicides in males outnumber those in females in almost all nations, including the United States. While males are more likely to complete suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide.<ref>Institute of Medicine. (2002). ''Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative''. Page 33. National Academies Press, Washington.</ref>

==Suicide in the Military==
The [[United States Army]], which has about one million soldiers, reported 99 suicides in 2006, which is less than 0.01%. About half were [[soldier]]s/officers under 25. According to Colonel [[Elspeth Ritchie]], psychiatry consultant to Army Surgeon General Major General [[Gale Pollock]], the primary motivation for these suicides had nothing to do with military service, and instead were due to "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html?sub=AR</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[kamikaze]]
*[[suicide bomber]]

[[category:culture]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Suicide

2008-03-21T21:41:50Z

Harebrained: factual error: suicide is not forbidden by the law, therefore is it incorrect to call it a crime.

'''Suicide''' is the act of killing oneself; it is considered a [[sin]] throughout all of [[Christianity]], and a mortal sin in [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] tradition; it is also a very grave sin within [[Islam]].

==Scope of the Problem==
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the world, claiming over one million lives globally in 1999. The suicide rate in the [[United States]] in 1999 was 10.7 per 100,000; the homicide rate that same year was only 6.2 per 100,000. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth 15–24 years old. White males over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, about 65 per 100,000. Suicide rates are also elevated in some ethnic groups. For example, suicide is about 1.5 times more prevalent than average among [[native American]]s. While whites continue to have higher suicide rates than blacks, the gap seems to be narrowing in young males. Suicides in males outnumber those in females in almost all nations, including the United States. While males are more likely to complete suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide.<ref>Institute of Medicine. (2002). ''Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative''. Page 33. National Academies Press, Washington.</ref>

==Suicide in the Military==
The [[United States Army]], which has about one million soldiers, reported 99 suicides in 2006, which is less than 0.01%. About half were [[soldier]]s/officers under 25. According to Colonel [[Elspeth Ritchie]], psychiatry consultant to Army Surgeon General Major General [[Gale Pollock]], the primary motivation for these suicides had nothing to do with military service, and instead were due to "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html?sub=AR</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[kamikaze]]
*[[suicide bomber]]

[[category:culture]]
[[Category:Sin]]

Taxation

2008-03-18T02:13:44Z

Harebrained:

'''Taxation''' is how [[government]]s steal [[money]] in order to provide services required for the common good.

There are many kinds of taxes, just as there are many things that are (or are not) considered to be in the common good.

Taxes can include:
*[[Tariff]]s on imported or exported goods and services
*[[Property tax]]es on the value of one's [[real estate]] holdings
*[[Sales tax]]es on marketplace transactions
**(The preceding three are examples of ''[[ad valorem tax|ad valorem]]'' taxes)
*[[Income tax]]es on money that is earned
*[[Estate tax]]es on inheritances
*[[Poll tax]]es required in order to vote
*[[Rooms and meals tax]]es, charged on [[restaurant]] and [[hotel]] purchases
*"[[Sin tax]]es" which are applied to socially disapproved products such as tobacco and alcohol
*[[Pigovian tax]]es are applied to correct [[negative externalities]]
*[[Toll]]s are fees paid by users of a specific piece of [[infrastructure]], like a [[road]] or [[bridge]]
*[[Value Added Tax|Value added tax]] is charged to manufacturers on the increase in value from raw materials to finished product (and of course passed along to consumers of the product)

Most systems of taxation not only use a combination of several of these, but have many exceptions (and loopholes) from universal application - for instance, a sales tax might not apply to food or clothing.

Rates of taxation and the provision of some services can be matters of great [[politics|political]] contention.

==See Also==

[[Government services]]

[[category:economics]]

Illegal drugs

2008-03-18T02:13:00Z

Harebrained: actually, "potential for abuse" is not a good criterion because it would include alcohol which isn't legal

[[Image:Drugs.jpg|right]]
[[Drugs]] are any chemical substances that effect a physical, mental, emotional, or behavioral change in an individual. [[Drug abuse]] is the use of any licit or illicit chemical substance that results in physical, mental, emotional, or behavioral impairment in an individual. '''Illegal drugs''' are drugs whose possession and/or use is forbidden by law (in most jurisdictions) due to their harmfulness and, usually, lack of therapeutic use. The most common illegal drugs are:

*[[Cannabis]] (Cannabis sativa) is the common hemp plant, which provides hallucinogens with some sedative properties, and includes marijuana (pot, Acapulco gold, grass, reefer), tetrahedrolcannabinol (THC, Marinol), hashish (hash), and hashish oil (hash oil).

*[[Coca]] (mostly Erythroxylum coca) is a bush with leaves that contain the stimulant used to make cocaine. Coca is not to be confused with cocoa, which comes from cacao seeds and is used in making chocolate, cocoa, and cocoa butter.

*[[Cocaine]] is a stimulant derived from the leaves of the coca bush.

*[[Hallucinogens]] are drugs that affect sensation, thinking, self-awareness, and emotion. Hallucinogens include LSD (acid, microdot), mescaline and peyote (mexc, buttons, cactus), amphetamine variants (PMA, STP, DOB), phencyclidine (PCP, angel dust, hog), phencyclidine analogues (PCE, PCPy, TCP), and others (psilocybin, psilocyn).

*[[Hashish]] is the resinous exudate of the cannabis or hemp plant (Cannabis sativa).

*[[Heroin]] is a semisynthetic derivative of morphine.

*[[Marijuana]] is the dried leaf of the cannabis or hemp plant (Cannabis sativa).

*[[Opium]] is the brown, gummy exudate of the incised, unripe seedpod of the opium poppy.

*[[Opium poppy]] (Papaver somniferum) is the source for the natural and semisynthetic narcotics.

*[[Poppy straw]] is the entire cut and dried opium poppy-plant material, other than the seeds. Opium is extracted from poppy straw in commercial operations that produce the drug for medical use.

*[[Qat]] (kat, khat) is a stimulant from the buds or leaves of Catha edulis that is chewed or drunk as tea.

Legal (pharmaceutical) drugs are also often used for recreational (i.e., non-therapeutic) purposes. Such use is usually illegal. Drugs often illegally abused in this manner include:

*[[Depressants]] (sedatives) are drugs that reduce tension and anxiety and include chloral hydrate, barbiturates (Amytal, Nembutal, Seconal, phenobarbital), benzodiazepines (Librium, Valium), methaqualone (Quaalude or Mandrax), glutethimide (Doriden), and others (Equanil, Placidyl, Valmid).

*[[Narcotics]] are drugs that relieve pain, often induce sleep, and refer to opium, opium derivatives, and synthetic substitutes. Natural narcotics include opium (paregoric, parepectolin), morphine (MS-Contin, Roxanol), codeine (Tylenol with codeine, Empirin with codeine, Robitussan AC), and thebaine. Semisynthetic narcotics include heroin (horse, smack), and hydromorphone (Dilaudid). Synthetic narcotics include meperidine or Pethidine (Demerol, Mepergan), methadone (Dolophine, Methadose), and others (Darvon, Lomotil).

*[[Stimulants]] are drugs that relieve mild depression, increase energy and activity, and include cocaine (coke, snow, crack), amphetamines (Desoxyn, Dexedrine), ephedrine, ecstasy (clarity, essence, doctor, Adam), phenmetrazine (Preludin), methylphenidate (Ritalin), and others (Cylert, Sanorex, Tenuate).

[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]

Human reproduction

2008-03-18T02:09:42Z

Harebrained:

'''Human reproduction''' is the mechanism by which we perpetuate our species. In order for human reproduction to occur, a [[married]] man and woman should engage in the ultimate act of intimacy. Most non-Christian cultures also enshrine this activity within a marriage-like union: a lifelong, legally sanctioned bond between one man and one woman. Some [[liberal]] "families" may reproduce outside of marriage or unions, but these "families" are prone to dissolution, drugs, violence, pedophilia, mental illness and [[liberal values]].

The ultimate act of intimacy serves to unite the male and female gametes, the sperm and egg, respectively. These gametes carry just one half of the genetic material (chromosomes) from each parent, and when they combine the new embryo contains a full set of chromosomes. The process of the gametes combining is called fertilization, and takes place inside the woman's body, in the fallopian tubes or uterus. The embryo then attaches itself to the uterine lining, and is nourished by the woman's body while it develops. This development takes roughly nine months.

At the end of this process of protected development, what was once an embryo is now born as a new baby. Human babies are relatively helpless, and depend on the care and love of their parents in order to survive to maturity themselves.

Humans are not able to reproduce alone by budding, parthenogenesis, or self-cloning as some species are capable of. In addition, human gender is fixed, unlike some species, females are not able to become male or vice versa to deal with homogeneous populations of one gender.

Human reproduction

2008-03-18T02:09:23Z

Harebrained:

'''Human reproduction''' is the mechanism by which we perpetuate our species. In order for human reproduction to occur, a [[married]] man and woman should engage in the ultimate act of intimacy. Most non-Christian cultures also enshrine this activity within a marriage-like union: a lifelong, legally sanctioned bond between one man and one woman. Some [[liberal]] "families" may reproduce outside of marriage or unions, but these "families" are prone to dissolution, drugs, violence, peadophilia, mental illness and [[liberal values]].

The ultimate act of intimacy serves to unite the male and female gametes, the sperm and egg, respectively. These gametes carry just one half of the genetic material (chromosomes) from each parent, and when they combine the new embryo contains a full set of chromosomes. The process of the gametes combining is called fertilization, and takes place inside the woman's body, in the fallopian tubes or uterus. The embryo then attaches itself to the uterine lining, and is nourished by the woman's body while it develops. This development takes roughly nine months.

At the end of this process of protected development, what was once an embryo is now born as a new baby. Human babies are relatively helpless, and depend on the care and love of their parents in order to survive to maturity themselves.

Humans are not able to reproduce alone by budding, parthenogenesis, or self-cloning as some species are capable of. In addition, human gender is fixed, unlike some species, females are not able to become male or vice versa to deal with homogeneous populations of one gender.

Debate:Has Britain Declined?

2008-03-17T13:56:40Z

Harebrained: /* No */

==No==

The British Empire and it's political influence have declined since the beginning of the 20th century, this is true, and is not a bad thing for the British people or the rest of the world.
Since the largely peaceful dissolution of the empire, after the end of WWII the lives of ordinary working class British people have improved greatly. My grandmother was born in to abject poverty in the Nottingham inner city in the 1920's, they had little food and no furniture. This is what imperialism and a rigid class system without social benefits did for the British. Thanks to [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[welfare state]] however, no-one lives like this in Britain any more. We have one of the best standards of living in the world, and Britain, along with the rest of western europe, is without doubt one of the best places to live.
Sorry, but I fail to see where the 'decline' is. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

That is all entirely true. Britain has not declined in any political or social aspect. I suspect what the person who wrote that news piece means is that Britain has declined morally, with their acceptance of evolution and all. That is opinion, and somehow not very befitting an website which fancies itself as an encyclopedia. [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 18:35, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

With the exception of the idiotic observation about the 'acceptance of evolution' above, I agree. The acceptance of evolution is a sign of intelligence, not of moral anything. The notion that Britain has 'declined' suggests a monstrous presupposition, that Britain was once great. Britain became great in 1948 with the introduction of the National Health Service, the Nationalisation of the Railways the Coal Mines and the major industries all of which took the working people of Great Britain forward into a world immensely richer and freer than that of their forefathers. This work by the Attlee govn was a major, practical step towards socialism, and should be being celebrated and analysed in a positive way, not knocked in sly, leading questions by stupid, right-wing pretend-encyclopedias such as this.

chris larner

Britain hasn't declined. It has simply been overshadowed by the United States, currently the world's most powerful state. And I'm sure, in time, the USA will in turn be overshadowed by another upstart superpower. The good ol' People's Republic, for instance. All hail Chairman Mao!

Britain has its problems (Yob culture, binge drinking, lack of respect, obesity, teenage pregnancy, overcrowding, etc. ) but what country doesn't? I think that Britain's problems are exaggerated in the press and that also a lot of things have improved greatly in the last 50 years. Britain has managed to become one of the wealthiest (per capita) nations in the world, with a high standard of living and education, with low levels of corruption (when compared to the rest of the world), a strong economy, and personal freedoms not enjoyed by 95% of the world's population.

==Yes==

You'll notice that there are no entries in the "yes" section

==FUNNY FUNNY TRUTH==
The funny truth about the piltdown man was it was the result of nationalism. It was fabricated as a response to a REAL discovery in Germany of the skeletons of the Neanderthal man. It's funny I don't see those IDERs/creationists mentioning that part of history.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:27, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Has Britain Declined?

2008-03-17T13:55:55Z

Harebrained: /* No */

==No==

The British Empire and it's political influence have declined since the beginning of the 20th century, this is true, and is not a bad thing for the British people or the rest of the world.
Since the largely peaceful dissolution of the empire, after the end of WWII the lives of ordinary working class British people have improved greatly. My grandmother was born in to abject poverty in the Nottingham inner city in the 1920's, they had little food and no furniture. This is what imperialism and a rigid class system without social benefits did for the British. Thanks to [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[welfare state]] however, no-one lives like this in Britain any more. We have one of the best standards of living in the world, and Britain, along with the rest of western europe, is without doubt one of the best places to live.
Sorry, but I fail to see where the 'decline' is. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

That is all entirely true. Britain has not declined in any political or social aspect. I suspect what the person who wrote that news piece means is that Britain has declined morally, with their acceptance of evolution and all. That is opinion, and somehow not very befitting an website which fancies itself as an encyclopedia. [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 18:35, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

With the exception of the idiotic observation about the 'acceptance of evolution' above, I agree. The acceptance of evolution is a sign of intelligence, not of moral anything. The notion that Britain has 'declined' suggests a monstrous presupposition, that Britain was once great. Britain became great in 1948 with the introduction of the National Health Service, the Nationalisation of the Railways the Coal Mines and the major industries all of which took the working people of Great Britain forward into a world immensely richer and freer than that of their forefathers. This work by the Attlee govn was a major, practical step towards socialism, and should be being celebrated and analysed in a positive way, not knocked in sly, leading questions by stupid, right-wing pretend-encyclopedias such as this.

chris larner

Britain hasn't declined. It has simply been overshadowed by the United States, currently the world's most powerful state. And I'm sure, in time, the USA will in turn be overshadowed by another upstart superpower. The good ol' People's Republic, for instance. All hail Chairman Mao!

Britain has its problems (Yob culture, binge drinking, lack of respect, obesity, teenage pregnancy, overcrowding, etc. ) but what country doesn't? I think that Britain's problems are exaggerated in the press and that also a lot of things have improved greatly in the last 50 year. Britain has managed to become one of the wealthiest (per capita) nations in the world, with a high standard of living and education, with low levels of corruption (when compared to the rest of the world), a strong economy, and personal freedoms not enjoyed by 95% of the world's population.

==Yes==

You'll notice that there are no entries in the "yes" section

==FUNNY FUNNY TRUTH==
The funny truth about the piltdown man was it was the result of nationalism. It was fabricated as a response to a REAL discovery in Germany of the skeletons of the Neanderthal man. It's funny I don't see those IDERs/creationists mentioning that part of history.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:27, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-03-17T13:32:41Z

Harebrained: /* YES */

=YES=

For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist.

For example, the articles on [[autoeroticism]] and [[oral sex]] have been deleted and prevented from being created. Now, I can understand that conservatives find oral sex immoral, indecent, disgusting, sinful or whatever, but why not simply explain that in the article about oral sex, and perhaps support it with other facts, such as the spread of STDs through oral sex? Why pretend that oral sex and autoeroticism, something practised by billions of people, does not exist?

Some may argue that oral sex is simply not important enough to be included here. But this is not the case. In America it is a topic of heated debate, and many Americans have been politically persecuted for practising it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia some] as recently as 3 years ago.

And if you want to "protect" children who read this site, you don't NEED to describe the graphic details of oral sex, all you need to do is talk about the controversies surrounding it.

In my opinion, simply ignoring a topic that you dislike is a blinkered attitude. Pretending that something doesn't exist is not going to make it go away. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not devoting webpages to a subject is not a case of pretending a subject does not exist. As your ilk are so eager to point out, if somebody wants to know about a subject, they are only a couple of clicks away on the internet. We ''choose'' not to have pages about them. As for "protecting" children - what is wrong with that? The alternative is the unecessarily early sexualization of children, which many liberals and homosexuals seem happy to push. Why do ''you'' think a child should be educated about fellatio? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:: As I've said, any sexual topic can be presented in a euphemistic way that doesn't sexualise children. I don't think a child should be educated about fellatio. But if a child happens to stumble across the fellatio article, it can be written in a way that the child won't understand it and become bored of it. All you need to say is "Fellatio is a sexual practice that conservatives disapprove of. Fellatio causes X, is supported by Y, and opposed by Z" You don't need to describe the graphic details. Why would such an article corrupt a child?? Conservapedia also has an article on [[homosexuality]]. How come you think children should be educated about ''that'' but not fellatio?

:::You are making a blanket, false and rather trite statement that "conservatives" disapprove of things because they don't have articles about them or discuss them at the water cooler. That demonstrates very poor reasoning on your part. A healthy, active and satisfying sex life within marriage is a ''good thing'' and nothing to be ashamed of. But similarly, my wife and I don't rut in the supermarket because it is also a private thing for us within our marriage. As for the article on homosexuality, if I was the site owner I would delete that too. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Most conservatives ''do'' disapprove of autoeroticism and fellatio. In many conservative-dominated states in America the practice was punishable by prison until recently! You argue that conservatives see sexual practices as a purely private matter and that this is the reason
they don't talk about them. But they don't. Conservatives have a long history of trying to meddle with the private sexual life of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick others] (even non-conservatives). Fact is, currently there ''is'' a political debate going on between conservatives about the legality of fellatio, and this encyclopedia fails to even mention that debate. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 09:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Libertarianism

2008-03-17T13:09:38Z

Harebrained: /* Libertarian Philosophy */

'''Libertarianism''' is a [[Political Philosophy|political philosophy]] emphasizing ''liberty'' and ''property''. A libertarian believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in all aspects of life; including economic, personal and in foreign policy matters. The [[French]] [[term]] of ''[[Laissez faire|Laissez-Faire]]'', or ''let us do'', is a term that describes some aspects of the libertarian belief. <ref>"Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.
Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook." [http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml] </ref>
== Libertarian Philosophy ==
Libertarians in America tend to be [[liberal]] on social issues but [[conservative]] on economic issues. Libertarians generally support the legalization of drugs, prostitution, [[same-sex marriage]] , [[euthanasia]], [[polygamy]] and [[abortion]]. They oppose restrictions on [[pornography]]. However, they also oppose [[universal health care]], [[taxes]] and the [[welfare state]]. They are strong supports of [[school choice]], and oppose continuing the [[public school]] system. Some libertarians support [[school vouchers]], while others are skeptical due to the issue of government influence over [[private education]].

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society.<ref>Libertarianism is closely related to liberalism, if this word is interpreted according to its original meaning of '[[classical liberal|classical liberalism]]'.</ref> They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, i.e., how much one is allowed to do (also referred to as negative liberty). This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do (also called positive liberty).

== Libertarian Factions ==

Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party. Thus, more libertarians exist than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Two general factions exist in the libertarian movement. The first are those libertarians who apply the principles of right to person and property to an absolute. They believe that no person, group, or government is above the right to violate these two things. They thus believe that government itself is illegitimate because it violates person and property. These libertarians subscribe to [[anarcho-capitalism]], as first named by [[Murray N. Rothbard]]. They believe that law and security can be handled by private means in the free market. The other faction believes in a very limited government. They are often referred to as [[minarchists]]. Libertarian minarchists want the state to only enforce law and order but generally nothing else. [[Ayn Rand]] was a minarchist.

Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control in all areas. However, there have been fusionist attempts to mix libertarianism and with social conservatism. This is noted in particular by [[paleolibertarians]]. They believe that social conservatism is a natural entity in a free society, but do not believe that it can be enforced by state interventionism.

== Libertarian Thought in America ==

While there are libertarian factions within the [[Democratic]] and [[Republican]] [[parties]], neither party is particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. While the Republican Party sometimes adopts libertarian-sounding rhetoric of small government in economic affairs, many libertarians see it as being a force that has increased government interventionism in these affairs. Libertarians generally, for example, are opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which they believe increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of the public. Most conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a necessary government program and believe security to be more important than personal liberty and privacy. Libertarians point out that such a view contradicts those of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who summarized it most eloquently, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Libertarians are also generally opposed to the [[Iraq War]], unlike the majority of conservatives.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government interference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

The libertarian movement generally praises the [[United States Constitution]], regarding it as the proper scope of the national government. They believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have overstepped constitutional limits. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, view the implementation of the constitution as the very reason the national government is the size it is today.

== Notable Libertarians ==
[[Image:Alexis de tocqueville.jpg|right|thumb|Alexis de Tocqueville]]
The Christian libertarian Lord Acton referred to the philosopher and theologian [[Thomas Aquinas]] as "the first Whig" or classical liberal. Other libertarian-oriented historic figures would include [[Adam Smith]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Alexis de Tocqueville]], [[John Stuart Mill]], Thomas Paine, [[John Locke]], [[Patrick Henry]], George Mason, [[Carl Menger]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], [[James Madison]], H. L. Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane, Albert Jay Nock, [[Frédéric Bastiat]], [[Herbert Spencer]], Richard Cobden, [[Henry David Thoreau]], and [[Hugo Grotius]].

*[[Ron Paul]], 1988 Libertarian Party and 2008 Republican Party presidential candidate.
*The psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, opponent of the therapeutic state and compulsory mental institutionalization.
*Nobel Laureate economists [[Milton Friedman]], [[F.A. Hayek]], [[Ronald Coase]], Gary Becker, James Buchanan, [[George Stigler]], and Vernon Smith.
*The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of some people in the libertarian movement, while others find her materialism and atheism incompatible with moral ethics and natural rights and law.
*[[Robert LeFevre]], significant in promoting libertarian philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s before it was a well-defined movement, with his "Freedom School" seminars on political and economic philosophy.
*[[Karl Hess]], speechwriter for [[Barry Goldwater]] credited with penning Goldwater's famous 1964 statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". Hess later became a major figure in the Libertarian Party.
*[[Murray N. Rothbard]] was nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He brought to life the anarcho-capitalist movement. Rothbard was an economist of the [[Austrian School]].
*[[Samuel Edward Konkin III]], a significant figure in 1970s libertarianism, whose influence waned considerably after the rise of the Libertarian Party as he opposed political parties and voting as being against libertarian principles. He proposed instead a purely marketplace-based route to a free society, such as [[tax resistance]] and doing business "off the books".
*[[Robert A. Heinlein]], science fiction author, whose 1966 novel ''The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress'' was an influence on the movement.
*[[L. Neil Smith]], [[J. Neil Schulman]], and [[Brad Linaweaver]], science fiction writers.
*Several popular financial writers including [[Harry Browne]] and [[Howard J. Ruff]]. Browne would later run for President, twice, on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ruff declared his political philosophy as libertarian but as a socially conservative [[Mormon]] made an exception on issues like abortion and prostitution, where he disagreed with the libertarian view.
*[[Penn and Teller]], stage magicians turned libertarian evangelicals preaching atheism and promoting libertarian philosophies, including controversial positions such as legalization of prostitution and drugs in their Showtime series, which sports a name that cannot for reasons of good taste be expressed here.
*The Canadian rock band [[Rush]], which has been together since 1968, often explores libertarian themes in their lyrics.
*Humorist Dave Barry, actor/comedian Drew Carey, actor Denis Leary, former MTV VJ Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery, actor Kurt Russell, investigative reporter [[John Stossel]], and the late rocker Frank Zappa have all referred to themselves as being aligned with or openly supporting the Libertarian Party.
*Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of [[South Park]], proclaimed that they are libertarians. While South Park often offend conservative positions like religion, are vulgar, and support evolution they also make fun of liberals positions such as political correctness and environmentalism. <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/116787.html] Parker and Stone, Reason Magazine</ref>. The phrases "South Park Conservative" (the name of a book) and "South Park Republican" are used to describe the followers of these beliefs.
*[[Ed Clark]], the Libertarian Party's 1980 nominee for President. Clark obtained the highest popular vote percentage to date for a Libertarian candidate.

== External links ==
* [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/ Libertarian FAQ]
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/ Open Directory libertarian links ]
* [http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html Black Libertarians]
* [http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page Libertarian Wiki]
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]
* [http://www.independent.org/ The Independent Institute]
* [http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute]
* [http://www.fee.org/ Foundation for Economic Education]

== See also ==
* [[Democratic Freedom Caucus]]
* [[Republican Liberty Caucus]]

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Politics]]

Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?

2008-03-17T13:06:27Z

Harebrained: /* Suggesting categories? */

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_quotient The issue for debate]

I've been wondering what this murky statistic actually is for Conservapedia; firstly, would all contributors give their summation of whether they are liberal or conservative (don't worry, Aschafly specifically said that you won't be banned because of it; he's fair and balanced, like that), so we can work it out. Should be interesting.

The second point is does it actually matter? If articles are sufficiently sourced, cited, and peer-reviewed, won't Conservapedia be 'right' (excuse the pun) automatically? Remember, the truth is the truth, no matter who says it. If Stalin had discovered gravity, we wouldn't all float up in the air.

Oh, and I would definitely say that I, according to your standards, am a [[Liberal]].

'''The Tally'''
[[Liberal]] = 1
[[Conservative]] = 0

(I do have to admit that this is a simplified version - merely a lib:con ratio; still should be interesting to see what people '''identify''' themselves as)

[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

In the end I think the whole premise of the question has problems. The world is not black and white, and not everyone is strictly a conservative or liberal. Most Americans land somewhere in the middle; in my case I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal...so do I pick both categories or neither? [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 07:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Oh, but for the purposes of this site, if you don't totally agree with the sysops, you are most certainly a liberal. You have got it, here though; too much on this site relies on this sort of Manichaean dichotomy between 'us' and 'them'. Well done for realising ;).[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::I am a libertarian socialist (code for "vaguely realistic anarchist") and more liberal than any Democrat. Yes, that also translates to some extent as the ironic "fiscally conservative proponent of a welfare state", but there are ways to acheive such a thing...the main thing for me is the right of the individual, above either goverment or corporation. Might call me a Jeffersonian Republican or something like that. [[User:Anmeris|Anmeris]] 14:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)

"Totally agree with the sysops?" Heck, it's obvious that a lot of the sysops don't even agree with each other a lot of the time! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggesting categories?==

To ease the process of analysis, why not create two categories (Liberal Conservapedians, Conservative Conservapedians), so that there might develop at least a basis in self-identification on which to base the LQ (and it's reciprocal, the CQ)? I know this isn't a talk page, but we should sign debate comments, right? [[User:Human|Human]] 17:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a great idea. Now we'll all know who to ignore before we have to read a single word they've written, thus avoiding potential memetic contamination. </SARCASM> --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ah, but then we could show Conservapedia for the hypocritical, lying site that it is, that it censors, and that all of those 'promises of neutrality' were worthless! [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::I am interested to know where you found these "promises of neutrality". I did not know Conservapedia made that claim. If you would please link me to the page where you found this, I would most definitely appreciate it. Thanks! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I demand a category all by myself. Contrarian Conservapedian or something like that. *nods* [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Why only two categories? Liberal/Conservative is a false dichotomy. I consider myself neither. If I had to choose a label it would be Libertarian.[[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 07:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-03-17T13:02:40Z

Harebrained: /* YES */

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-03-17T12:29:47Z

Harebrained: /* YES */

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-03-17T12:25:26Z

Harebrained: /* YES */

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-03-17T12:25:08Z

Harebrained: /* YES */

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-03-17T12:23:24Z

Harebrained: New page: =YES= For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist. For example, the a...

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-03-17T11:59:47Z

Harebrained: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[What is wrong with communism?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-03-17T11:58:16Z

Harebrained: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[What is wrong with communism?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?

2008-03-17T11:56:08Z

Harebrained:

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_quotient The issue for debate]

I've been wondering what this murky statistic actually is for Conservapedia; firstly, would all contributors give their summation of whether they are liberal or conservative (don't worry, Aschafly specifically said that you won't be banned because of it; he's fair and balanced, like that), so we can work it out. Should be interesting.

The second point is does it actually matter? If articles are sufficiently sourced, cited, and peer-reviewed, won't Conservapedia be 'right' (excuse the pun) automatically? Remember, the truth is the truth, no matter who says it. If Stalin had discovered gravity, we wouldn't all float up in the air.

Oh, and I would definitely say that I, according to your standards, am a [[Liberal]].

'''The Tally'''
[[Liberal]] = 1
[[Conservative]] = 0

(I do have to admit that this is a simplified version - merely a lib:con ratio; still should be interesting to see what people '''identify''' themselves as)

[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

In the end I think the whole premise of the question has problems. The world is not black and white, and not everyone is strictly a conservative or liberal. Most Americans land somewhere in the middle; in my case I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal...so do I pick both categories or neither? [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 07:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Oh, but for the purposes of this site, if you don't totally agree with the sysops, you are most certainly a liberal. You have got it, here though; too much on this site relies on this sort of Manichaean dichotomy between 'us' and 'them'. Well done for realising ;).[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::I am a libertarian socialist (code for "vaguely realistic anarchist") and more liberal than any Democrat. Yes, that also translates to some extent as the ironic "fiscally conservative proponent of a welfare state", but there are ways to acheive such a thing...the main thing for me is the right of the individual, above either goverment or corporation. Might call me a Jeffersonian Republican or something like that. [[User:Anmeris|Anmeris]] 14:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)

"Totally agree with the sysops?" Heck, it's obvious that a lot of the sysops don't even agree with each other a lot of the time! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggesting categories?==

To ease the process of analysis, why not create two categories (Liberal Conservapedians, Conservative Conservapedians), so that there might develop at least a basis in self-identification on which to base the LQ (and it's reciprocal, the CQ)? I know this isn't a talk page, but we should sign debate comments, right? [[User:Human|Human]] 17:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a great idea. Now we'll all know who to ignore before we have to read a single word they've written, thus avoiding potential memetic contamination. </SARCASM> --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ah, but then we could show Conservapedia for the hypocritical, lying site that it is, that it censors, and that all of those 'promises of neutrality' were worthless! [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::I am interested to know where you found these "promises of neutrality". I did not know Conservapedia made that claim. If you would please link me to the page where you found this, I would most definitely appreciate it. Thanks! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I demand a category all by myself. Contrarian Conservapedian or something like that. *nods* [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Why only two categories? Liberal/Conservative is a false dichotomy. I consider myself neither. If I had to choose a label it would be Libertarian.[[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 07:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]