Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Uncyclopedia

2012-01-22T05:12:36Z

JasonDavidson: Recent mass dletions of pages have caused a significant drop in content

[[File:Wiki.png|right]]
'''Uncyclopedia''' is a parody encyclopedia project created in January 2005<ref>http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover-interview/the-brains-behind-uncyclopedia</ref>to lampoon [[Wikipedia]]'s extensive coverage, by mirroring their style of articles. It now has over 29,000 articles<ref> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:AllPages</ref>. Popular topics parodied include [[Global warming]], [[Evolution]] and [[Creation]], the [[Bush]] administration, [[Conservapedia]], and popular culture. A recurring joke on the site is making up [[Oscar Wilde]] quotes as well as quotes by Chuck Norris, Captain Obvious, Kanye West, and Russian Reversals.

Uncyclopedia's userbase, despite being a parody of [[Wikipedia]], supports much of the same liberal material that Wikipedia does. It is hosted by [[Wikia]], [[Jimbo Wales]]' for profit webhost. Its lack of standards results in an obviously liberal stance, and much of their satire is directed at Christian and Conservative values. In particular, their article on Conservapedia is composed mostly of hate speech, blatant lies, and labeling Conservatives as "retards". In addition, they attack creationism using a "pro-creationist" article, which mocks creationism by phrases like "evolution will get you sent straight to hell" and "Darwin was a **** Satanist". As 2011, very few pages are in their "Liberal" catagory.

Uncyclopedia is far from family friendly; it contains many offensive words and images in its articles. Shortly after [[Jerry Falwell]] died (15th May, 2007), Uncyclopedia presented an article with the following highly offensive statements:

{{QuoteBox|'''BREAKING NEWS!''' 
'''Jerry Falwell has died.''' 
'''DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WITCH IS DEAD, DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE MEAN OL' WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!'''}}

{{QuoteBox|Dr. (it is a little known fact that he earned six PhDs) Jerry Fartwell (born: Breadline Era, died: Nappy Headed Imus Era) was a fat [obscenity deleted] bastard and famous mongoloid who re-instituted the hangman's noose in Lynchburg, Virginia (1956).}}

'''''Update'':''' Uncyclopedia finally deleted the Jerry Falwell article on 10th November, 2007.<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Jerry_Falwell</ref>

Uncyclopedia also has an article labeled "Bad Right Wing Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".<ref>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Bad_Right_Wing_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense</ref> This is an example of Uncyclopedian censorship.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]

Moral decline

2012-01-19T06:16:12Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction(s). Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

'''Moral decline''' (or ''degeneration'') refers to the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of [[morality]]. The condition of moral decline is seen as preceding or concomitant with the decline in quality of life, as well as the decline of [[nations]]. In the words of British lawyer and jurist Judge Devlin (1905 -1992), "an established morality is as necessary as good government to the welfare of society. Societies disintegrate from within more frequently than they are broken up by external pressures."<ref>Devlin, in Dworkin pp.76-7, (1977)</ref>

==Moral standards==

In order for morality to be upheld and for degeneration to be effectively measured, standards must exist as points of moral reference. While legal philosophy may hold that immorality is whatever a moral person considers immoral, these judgments are typically based on or are derived from either transcendent religious sources or established secular ideology. On a corporate scale, all governments and their legal and educational institutions operate out some basic moral beliefs, making complete separation of State from moral ideology impossible. In America, it was widely held that, in the words of [[Theodore Roosevelt]], "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society", with the morality referred to being foundationally that of the Bible.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html Cause and Effect: The Bible, the Educational System, and Its Influence]</ref>

In the realm of formal religion, moral codes are passed on via sacred scriptures and [[tradition]]s, which usually transcend time. However, cultural adaptations may be made as needed, while upholding the principal of the original.<ref> An example from Biblical law is the prohibition in [[Leviticus 18]]:21 (cf. 20:5) of child dedication or literal child sacrifice to the [[Canaanite]] god [[Molech]] While the deity at subject is not an issue today, [[Christians]] may understand this (and like condemnations: (Eze. 16:20-21; 20:31; Jer. 32:35; 2Ki. 23:10; 16:3; 17:17; 21:6, cf. Psa_106:37-38) as forbidding [[abortion]], and or giving their children over to be raised under false ideologies.</ref> This adaptation is an area of [[theology]].

According to the [[New Testament]], conscience and creation reveal essential moral truth, with the [[holy Scripture]]s being the more comprehensive revelation, and the objective and immutable authority by which the truthfulness of any light of conscience is determined.<ref>Dr. John Gill (1690-1771), ''Exposition of the Entire Bible'', Romans 2</ref><ref>B. W. Johnson, ''The People's New Testament'' (1891), Romans 2:1-16</ref>

While all major formal religions usually possess many basic moral commonalities, they can critically differ in some areas, including their manner or degree of cultural adaptation, such as are seen in the contrasts between the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]].<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html MUHAMMAD VERSUS JESUS CHRIST]</ref>

Under secularism, religiously based laws may be upheld without requiring formal assent to one formal religion, as was the case in most of the history of the United States. However, as changes in spiritual demographics occur, one ideological basis may be exchanged for another, such as is seen in atheistic humanism increasingly becoming the basis for morality in America, and essentially being State-sponsored, and supplanting that which was more Bible-based.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html</ref>

In the ideology of secular [[humanism]], which the most prominent Western form of secularism advances, moral values are highly subject to change, being based upon the presumed superior reasoning of man, who is set forth as the supreme lawgiver. Being basically atheistic, it operates out of a [[materialistic]] foundation, and lacking an objective, transcendent moral authority and its moral absolutes, it offers no assurance of moral stability, and is prone to extremes of [[moral relativism]].

How materialism assesses morality is described by William Provine, a professor from Cornell University,
{{cquote|Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable... Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society. Thirdly, human beings are marvelously complex machines. The individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is. Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us. <ref>from Philip Johnson, "Darwin On Trial", p. 126; Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993</ref>}}

==Causality==

===Biblical theology===

The cause of moral degeneration continues be a subject of study. In the Bible, moral decline was always a result of spiritual declension, that of falling into idolatry (the worship of false, gods), which is evidenced in the Bible to be the ''mother of all sins''. In addition to the transitory and finite nature of such created gods, these are seen to be forbidden due to their being the product of man's corrupt nature, such as is expressed in [[Romans 1]] in the [[Christian]] [[New Testament]]. Man also tends to become more like the object of his highest devotion and allegiance. (Psalm 115) God, who is stated to need nothing, (Acts 17:25) and being omnipotent, omniscient and perfect, (Dt. 32:4) is seen to command man to worship Him as a matter of righteousness,<ref>[[Matthew Henry]]’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Rev. 4:11</ref> and for the good of man. (Dt. 6:1-13; 28:1-14; 30:16)

Certain environmental conditions are also seen as being conducive to idolatry and its spiritual and moral decline, these conditions most primarily being that of an abundance of sensual and material satisfaction, as well as ego fulfillment (pleasures, possessions and power). The Bible states that these created things are what the world "lusts" after, (1 John 2:16) and exhorts believers to set their controlling affection upon God and holy things. (Dt. 6:5; Col. 3; Phil. 4:8) The book of [[Deuteronomy]] expresses that after [[Israel]] was blessed for its obedience, then the people "waxed fat" and then "forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." (Dt. 32:15) [[Ezekiel]] 16:49,50 states that the overall sins of [[Sodom]] were "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness", and indifference to the poor and needy, and who committed abomination (revealed to be fornication, and that of a most perverse manner) resulting in their utter destruction. ''See:'' [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

2 Chronicles 26:16 records that when King Uzziah increased in power, then "his heart was lifted up to his destruction", after he presumed priestly powers which were not his. In contrast, some of the greatest examples of Godly men in the Bible are those who maintained their faith and spiritual relationship with God in both adversity and abundance, in affliction and affluence, such as [[Job]], [[Daniel]] and the [[apostle Paul]], (Phil. 4:12) in addition to [[Jesus Christ]] Himself. (Heb. 4:15)

In early America, the tendency to drift away from faith in times of prosperity was observed early by Puritan preacher Cotton Mather (1663-1728) who stated, "Religion begat prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother".<ref>Magnalia Christi Americana (The Great Achievement of Christ in America, 1702)</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=M0_ktxTHhdkC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=cotton+mather+prosperity+is+the+daughter&source=bl&ots=ASEEaFcVMi&sig=-Vzy9Nnl6UcsbreMrpzRTDIOQzM&hl=en&ei=U7nMSvTjGcitlAf59tzNBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=cotton%20mather%20prosperity%20is%20the%20daughter&f=false Leland Ryken, ''Worldly saints: the Puritans as they really were'', p. 63]</ref>

A latter acknowledgment of this guilt and the need to place priorities where they should be was eloquently expressed by President Abraham Lincoln in his ''Proclamation for a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer'', issued in the midst (1863) of the [[American Civil War]], which reads (in part),
{{cquote|Whereas, it is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His Divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People. We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God.

We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.<ref>Robert Nicholson Scott, ''The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union...'', p. 106, United States. War Dept (1899) </ref> <ref>Frank Moore, ''The Rebellion record: a diary of American events, with documents, narratives...'', Vol. 3, p. 490</ref><ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ProclamationNationalFastDay.html</ref>,}}

===Secular ideology===

Moral decline begins when transcendent moral values, which have proven to be beneficial over time, are discarded in preference to various ideas which man finds more conducive to achieving ultimately destructive lustful desires.

While people without religion may sometimes be considered relatively ''good'', and contrasted with ''evil'' people, yet, in contrast to the Bible, atheism offers no objective transcendent authority which comprehensively defines good and evil, and which is proven to provide beneficial morality. In addition, the moral foundation of [[atheism]] is seen by many as having allowed atheists such as [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Pol Pot]] and others to easily justify their atrocities, these being pragmatically ''reasonable'' to them. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html ATHEISM VERSUS CHRIST]</ref><ref>http://www.scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html</ref> The corresponding responses from atheists, such as which invoke Hitler as an example of a Christian, and or charge God with immorality (paradoxically, by Biblical standards), is part of a renewed conflict.<ref>http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&mode=detail</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html</ref>

==Examples of development and decline==

General [[Douglas MacArthur]] once stated,
{{cquote|History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline.<ref>America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations</ref>}}

===Biblical examples===
The Bible, containing extensive historical narratives, provides many personal and corporate examples of spiritual and moral development declension, otherwise know as ''backsliding''.<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/Backsliders/Nave</ref> [[Israel]] was provided much grace by way of superior laws, and leaders such as Moses and Joshua, and enjoyed blessings of obedience, as recorded in the [[Torah]] (and in such overviews as Psalms 105). But soon they overall "dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not" to God's commandments, as succinctly rehearsed by Nehemiah (cp. 9) and Psalms 78, 105, 107, Acts 7, and [[Old Testament]] prophets such as Hosea. The grace given to men such as King Saul, David, Solomon, Asa and Hezekiah, and their subsequent failures, provide examples of souls who walked in disobedience, to their and Israel's hurt, though in such examples as David, earnest repentance enabled continued usefulness. In the New Testament, a higher plane of holiness is exhorted and enabled, (Rm. 8:4), with 1 John delineating what manner of faith is efficacious to salvation. Most individual examples of backsliding (which presumes a period of growth first) are more incidental, such as Peter's denial of Christ, (Mk. 14:66-72) and of Gentile equality, under pressure, (Gal. 2:9-14) but are offset by overall holy lives. Other souls, such as Demas (who "hath forsaken me [Paul], having loved this present world", (2 Tim. 4:10) indicate a more willful spiritual and moral departure. The [[apostle Paul]]'s letters to the [[Corinthians]] reveal the most detailed example of corporate backsliding of a Christian church.

===China===

China's long recorded history testifies to both various degrees of moral virtue as well as moral declension and its consequences, and to some degree of reform. Recent evidence indicates moral decline is seen an increasing problem in China today. One influential contemporary moralist comments, "The problem isn’t that people don’t follow moral standards; the problem is that there no longer exist moral standards.” He attributes the loss of morality to five decades of atrophy under Communist political power, plus two decades of corrosion under the money and wealth brought by the Western market economy. <ref>Jiang Qing, quoted by Xujun Eberlein in ''China Has A Morality Crisis'', NAM, Commentary, Jan 23, 2008</ref>

===Roman Empire===

While pagan Rome evidenced that its people had retained a somewhat strong degree of adherence to many basic moral values for much of its history, without which it could not have been a great empire, their gods themselves (mainly being forms of Greek deities) were immoral, and the Roman Empire followed the path of moral degeneration that would be its ruin. The moral deterioration of the Empire is seen to have attained its highest point in the dissolute age of the immoral Roman Emperors,<ref>Prof. Kurtz's church history, p. 25 (1889)</ref> almost all of which were active [[homosexuals]], and who often claimed godhood themselves in order to legitimize their rule.

J.W. Shepard states,
{{Cquote|The religion of the Romans had no power to cope with the degeneracy of the times. The philosophies of the Greeks failed. None of the philosophies could meet the deep moral needs of the times. The emperors were monsters of crime.

Thousands of lives were sacrificed in the arena to furnish entertainment for the Emperor and a bloodthirsty population. Luxury was beyond description. The horrible character of vice and crime is witnessed to by the excavated objects of Pompeii.

Seneca testified that children were considered with great disfavor and infant exposure was prevalent. Tacitus said that the spirit of the times was "to corrupt and to be corrupted."

Paul gives a picture in the Roman epistle of a people who had departed from the God revealed in nature and conscience, to set up for themselves, through vain independence, gods like unto creatures. From this idol worship they had gone on into moral degeneracy and crime until they were lost in a world of darkness and destruction.

This was the condition of the world morally when Jesus came, who was to "overcome the world" with His Gospel.<ref>J.W. Shepard, "The Christ of the Gospels" Reprint, p. 15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982)</ref>}}

Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889) adds,

<blockquote>Slavery was not even what we know it, but a seething mass of cruelty and oppression on the one side, and of cunning and corruption on the other. More than any other cause, it contributed to the ruin of Roman society. The freedmen, who had very often acquired their liberty by the most disreputable courses, and had prospered in them, combined in shameless manner the vices of the free with the vileness of the slave. The foreigners - especially Greeks and Syrians - who crowded the city, poisoned the springs of its life by the corruption which they brought. The free citizens were idle, dissipated, sunken; their chief thoughts of the theatre and the arena; and they were mostly supported at the public cost. While, even in the time of Augustus, more than two hundred thousand persons were thus maintained by the State, what of the old Roman stock remained was rapidly decaying, partly from corruption, but chiefly from the increasing cessation of marriage, and the nameless abominations of what remained of family-life.<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.vii.xi.html Edersheim, ''Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah'', CHAPTER XI.]</ref>
</blockquote>

''See also [[Roman Homosexuality]]

===The United States===

[[America]] is seen to be somewhat unique in the degree of moral foundation which was it founded upon, with a strong Biblically based influence, which was strengthened as a result of religious revivals, and which affected a strong union of faith and civil life in the new [[Republic]]. French historian Alexis de Tocqueville commented,
{{cquote|The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.<ref>Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII (1835)</ref>}}

The [[Puritans]] in [[New England]], and later, other Christian groups were instrumental in forming a country with a distinctive Christian character. Noted evangelical author and commentary [[Os Guinness]] comments that,
<blockquote>
while America has never officially been a "Christian Republic," for much of its history the Christian faith has been a leading contribution to its unofficial civil religion.<ref>Os Guinness, ''American Hour'', p. 225</ref>
</blockquote>

Though the extreme of creating theocracies ruling over those without the church (contrary to the charter given to the church in the New Testament<ref>John 18:36; 1Cor. 5:12,13; 2 Cor 10:4; Eph. 6:12; Romans 13:1-5; 1Pet. 2:16</ref>) was rightly resisted by men such as [[Baptist]] [[Roger Williams]], yet all 50 states referred to God in their Constitutions.<ref>http://www.whateveristrue.com/heritage/preamble.htm</ref> Evangelical Calvinism (then the predominate faith) is seen as fostering a fervent American nationalism,<ref>Alan Heimert, ''Religion and the Colonial Mind''</ref> and the effect of a Bible based Christianity is credited with working to bring souls to be ruled from within, by the Spirit of Christ and a sound conscience.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html</ref> This helped to enable relatively small government and yet promote stability in a vast and fertile country with a multitude of different peoples, and to endure and progress in overcoming many serious negative consequences of the abuse of power, and the iniquity of unjust bondage.

While not all the Founders were Christian, none were known atheists, and Deists consisted of men such as [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[James Madison]], and [[Thomas Paine]].

Primary in establishing a strong moral foundation was [[education]]. In elementary schooling in early America, the overtly Christian ''[[New England Primer]]'' was used in [[New England]], which is estimated to have sold upwards to 3,000,000 copies from 1700 to 1850. Introduced in 1690, this reader was used in what now would be the 1st grade, and taught multitudes of children how to read for 200 years, until 1900. The [[Alphabet]] was taught with Bible verses that began with each letter of the alphabet. Lessons had questions about the Bible and the Ten Commandments. An example of the Primer is, A = In Adam's fall, we sinned all. B = Heaven to find, the Bible mind."<ref>[http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage19.htm The Honorable Judge Robert Ulrich Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District]</ref>

In addition, approximately half of all American children learned from the ''[[McGuffey Reader]],'' a series of textbooks of which 122 million copies were published (during a time when the population was much less than today, and books were passed on more). The first Reader was published in the 1830's, and was followed by five additional Readers, the last being published in 1885. This was an advanced teaching system for its time, written by William Holmes McGuffey, who later became a Presbyterian minister, and a work which earned him the title, “the Great Schoolmaster of the Nation.” McGuffey believed religion and education were to be interrelated and were essential to a healthy society. McGuffey exalted the Lord Jesus Christ, and used the Bible more than any other source, though the later revised editions (which used McGufey’s name though he neither contributed to them nor approved their revisions) became more pluralistic in their moral instruction. The Readers were filled with stories of strength, character, goodness and truth, working to instill standards of basic Christian-based morality for more than a century.<ref>http://www.mcguffeyreaders.com/history.htm</ref>

McGuffey Readers became the standardized reading text for most schools across the United States, especially throughout the West and South, during the mid to late nineteenth century,<ref>[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15577 Henry H. Vail, ''A History of the McGuffey Readers'']</ref> <ref>[http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1469 McGuffey's Reader]</ref> and were used widely in America until just after World War I. This resulted in the Readers becoming a unifying force in American culture, giving America a common value-laden body of literary reference and allusion,<ref>Cranney, A. Garr, 'Noah Webster and William Holmes McGuffey: The Men and Their Contributions to Reading''</ref> and “a sense of common experience and of common possession”.<ref>Historian Henry Steele Commager</ref>

The first elementary schools also taught Christian morality, and even the [[Unitarian]] (a religion which essentially denies Christ and Divine biblical authority, but which then overall upheld Bible morality, much unlike it does today) ''Father of the Common School'', Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859), who became Massachusetts Secretary of Education in 1837, not only understood the impossibility of separating education from religious moral beliefs, but held that it was lawful to teach the truths of the general Christian faith, asserting that the “laws of Massachusetts required the teaching of the basic moral doctrines of Christianity.” Mann, who supported prohibition of alcohol and intemperance, slavery and lotteries, <ref>http://www.famousamericans.net/horacemann</ref> dreaded “intellectual eminence when separated from virtue”, and that education, if taught without moral responsibilities, would produce more evil than it inherited.<ref>William Jeynes, “American educational history: school, society, and the common good,” p. 149, 150 </ref>

In higher education, the second requirement of [[Harvard]] Universities ''Lawes'' of 1642 (after requiring literacy in Latin, which language the Scriptures were then mostly written in), was that "Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. (Joh. 17:3) Overall, the nature of early colleges and universities was religious, and which continued at least until the Civil War. Even State colleges had significant religious (most always Christian) components, such as mandatory religion courses and attendance at chapel services, while large numbers of their faculties had formal religious training. <ref>Ringenberg, 1984; Marsden and Longfield, 1962; Ronald W. Fagan and Raymond G. DeVries, ''The practice of sociology at Christian liberal arts colleges and universities''; The American Sociologist, June, 1994</ref>

By 1820 American publishers had produced almost 300 different editions of the King James Bible, and by 1870 the number had increased to almost 1,900 in the English language alone. By the mid-800'sBiblical literacy so high that, as these historians state,
<blockquote>
Authors throughout this period used biblical stories and phraseology as a kind of cultural anchor in their own works. They were able to allude to the biblical narrative—or how that narrative was worded in the King James Version of the Bible—with an un-abashed fluency and confidence. Readers were so familiar with certain biblical stories, characters, and passages that authors could build upon these narratives in their own works without feeling any need to point out the biblical roots of their thinking. Frederick Douglass could write of weeping "near the rivers of Babylon" and Harriet Beecher Stowe could underline the Christlike character of Tom in Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) by lacing his conversation with unattributed biblical allusions, knowing that their readers would know the parts of the Bible they were so freely referencing.<ref>''The Bible." American History Through Literature,'' Ed. Janet Gabler-Hover and Robert Sattelmeyer. Gale Cengage, 2006. eNotes.com. 2006. 10 Nov, 2010</ref>
</blockquote>

While iniquity was always a significant part of America, it was generally held as shameful and overall resisted by Church and State. Early on, in a pamphlet for Europeans titled ''Information to Those Who Would Remove to America'' (1754), Benjamin Franklin wrote, in part:
{{cquote|...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country.<ref>John Gould Curtis, ''American history told by contemporaries ...''. Volume 3, p. 26 </ref>}}

During certain periods of America's growth moral degradation increased, and a strong correlation was felt between loss of Christian religious devotion and the increase in iniquity. America's faith saw revival as a result of the [[First Great Awakening]] in the 1730s and 1740's, and which is held to have began the modern [[Evangelical Christian]] movement. During the period of approximately 1800-1830's the [[Second Great Awakening]] took place, and a [[Third Great Awakening]] occurring from the late 1850's to the early 1900's. These revivals had a profound spiritual and civil impact on Christian faith within America and [[England]], and worked toward the abolition of the well-entrenched historical institution of slavery.

As a [[Library of Congress]] exhibit notes,
{{cquote|The religion of the new American republic was evangelicalism, which, between 1800 and the Civil War, was the "grand absorbing theme" of American religious life. During some years in the first half of the nineteenth century, revivals (through which evangelicalism found expression) occurred so often that religious publications that specialized in tracking them lost count. In 1827, for example, one journal exulted that "revivals, we rejoice to say, are becoming too numerous in our country to admit of being generally mentioned in our Record."

During the years between the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, historians see "evangelicalism emerging as a kind of national church or national religion." The leaders and ordinary members of the "evangelical empire" of the nineteenth century were American patriots who subscribed to the views of the Founders that religion was a "necessary spring" for republican government; they believed, as a preacher in 1826 asserted, that there was "an association between Religion and Patriotism." Converting their fellow citizens to Christianity was, for them, an act that simultaneously saved souls and saved the republic. The American Home Missionary Society assured its supporters in 1826 that "we are doing the work of patriotism no less than Christianity."<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html ''Religion and the New Republic''], Library of Congress exhibit</ref>}}

The 1800's and onward also saw a notable increase in the charitable work by private persons and agencies. In 1835 De Tocqueville<ref>Democracy in America</ref> noted that early America had no distinct class of wealth that could be turned to in times of need to relieve suffering. Associations necessarily formed to create the means to deal with problems and reflected a compassion for all those in trouble. Many agencies created during that time exist today. <ref>http://74.52.60.18/~npt/index.php?page=1800-s A Chronological HISTORY OF PHILANTHROPY in America.</ref>
<blockquote>
Benevolent societies were a new and conspicuous feature of the American landscape during the first half of the nineteenth century. Originally devoted to the salvation of souls, although eventually to the eradication of every kind of social ill, benevolent societies were the direct result of the extraordinary energies generated by the evangelical movement—specifically, by the “activism” resulting from conversion.<ref>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel07.html</ref>
</blockquote>

While not preventing the [[American Civil War]], a heightened moral sense of guilt and accountability is seen expressed in President [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s ''Proclamation for a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer'' (1863),<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ProclamationNationalFastDay.html</ref> which states (in part),
{{cquote|We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!}}

====Early to mid 20th century====

Religiously, the early 1900's saw a revival of [[Pentecostalism]], as well as the rise of Evangelical Christian ''[[Fundamentalism]]'' as a distinct form. The latter was manifested in response to the growth of ''[[liberal Christianity]]'' and doctrinally labored to combat liberalism's move away from historical Christian faith, especially as concerned Christ and salvation, and the Bible's strong emphasis upon personal morality. Liberal theology also placed primary emphasis on a [[social gospel]], while Fundamentalism was rightly committed to uphold the primacy of basic doctrine and to tend to the spiritual needs of souls. However, opportunities to meet material needs of those without tended to be marginalized, an overreaction that some later recognized as an imbalance.<ref>Frank E. Gaebelein, ''Evangelicals and Social Concern'', March 1982 </ref>

Educationally, the rise of [[Darwinism]] worked against the view of man as being made in the image of man and reduced him to being simply a higher order of primates, with morality having no firm foundation. High schools and places of higher education increasingly became places of rampant STD's,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec7</ref> inflated grades, and the marginalization of core subjects.<ref>Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University: “What Will They Learn For Your $50,000?”</ref>

Economically, building upon the foundation of the past, post [[World War 1]] capitalism and the ongoing [[Industrial revolution]] helped enable more goods and funds for the general public.

Morally, much effort was expended in passing [[Prohibition in the United States]] (1920 to 1933), while during the same period the [[Roaring 20's]] manifested a marked degree of cultural rejection of traditional moral decency. The following [[Great Depression]] (1929-1940's) signaled an end to the economic boon, and post [[Word War Two]] saw the traditional family focused on, as many men and women [[married]] and raised children.

The overcrowding of cities was seen as contributing to moral corruption, and in 1890 the [[New York]] Society for Parks and Playgrounds, described as a “moral movement not a charity”, was incorporated. Its purpose was to provide healthy recreation for the 500,000 boys and girls in [[New York]] city, and so help to counteract "the physical and moral degeneration" which so often follows densely populated cities.<ref>Vrooman, Walter, ''Open Letters: Playgrounds and Parks for Children'', pp. 317-318: Journals: Century (1881 - 1899)</ref> In 1897, New York city Mayor William L. Strong appointed the Small Parks Advisory Committee, which advised constructing playgrounds with equipment and trained recreation specialists, for "the physical energies of youth, which, if not directed to good ends, will surely manifest themselves in evil tendencies.” In addition to recreation, children took part in drills, singing, a salute to the flag, a talk by the school principal, and occupation work, etc. These early reformers saw recreation not as an end in itself, but as properly carried out, a program directly linked to “social morality.” “If our boys . . . are going to acquire the habit of subordinating selfish to group interests, they must learn these things through experience and not from books or the bleachers . . . ” <ref>Luther Halsely Gulick, Popular Recreation and Public Morality, 1912</ref><ref>http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_history/playgrounds.html</ref>

In the 1950's, the danger of [[Communism]] worked a renewed affirmation of America being a basically Christian nation, though no significant religious revival was evident, and [[liberal ideology]] increased its influence through colleges and universities, as well as the film industry.

====1960 and beyond====
The decade of the 1960's would begin the most dramatic moral change in America's history. While a more developed moral social consciousness helped to effect beneficial and needed changes, such as in the area of civil rights, as regards such non-moral aspects as race and color, this recognition of basic equality was used by liberal moralists to advocate liberty for immorality in word and in deed, most predominately in the area of sensuality. The 1967 "Summer of love" saw hundreds of thousands of teenagers leaving their homes in search for deeper meaning, as well as satisfaction of fleshly lusts, with "turn on, tune in, and drop out," being a favorite phrase. Vast multitudes made their pilgrimage to the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, an area home to many rock icons, and known for its liberalized ideology and culture. The civilization that resulted was a testimony to the practical result of the prolonged practice of this ideology, and when the infrastructure of tradition society, which they both rebelled against and depended upon, could no support them. While the [[liberal media]] tended to celebrate it as a positive attempt at Utopian culture, indolence, homelessness or unsanitary living, and drug use (and overdoses) abounded, along with marked increases in crime and disease. "By the fall of 1967, Haight-Ashbury was nearly abandoned, trashed, and laden with drugs and homeless people. Most of the kids that descended upon the Haight with such hope and optimism in June returned home sick and out of money by September."<ref>http://deathofthehippiesubculture.blogspot.com/2009/05/and-finally-bit-about-decline-of-hippie.html</ref>

The 1960's culminated with two major distinctive concerts in 1969, [[Woodstock]] and the Altamont Speedway Free Festival. The former would become the world's most celebrated rock concert, being peaceful despite over 500,000 people, while the other was the largest rock disaster ever, with security being provided by Hell's Angels (whom many saw as counter-cultural brothers), and a murderous man being killed while the [[Rolling Stones]] sang "Sympathy to the Devil".<ref>Adam Stanley. Minnesota echoes, Atamont</ref>

As regards moral decline, overall much of the generation of that decade and those that followed evidenced increased rebellion against authority in general(though usually not to living off the government) and against capitalism, and the promotion and practice of pre-marital [[sex]], recreational drug use, the rise of [[feminism]] and the advocation of liberal ideology. While most of the [[Liberal Media|main stream media]] and University professors in America are seen to treat this revolution and its foundational ethos as liberating and beneficial, its effects have been manifestly deleterious, as evidenced by multitudinous studies and statistics.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html ''REVEALING STATISTICS, or Costs of the war against God'']</ref>

While promoting tolerance within its culture, and (in the beginning) rejecting the idea that materialism brought fulfillment, the 1960's cultural [[revolution]] birthed an unprecedented intolerance of traditional values, while its affection for drugs - used to find the alternative reality they sought - and the its later promotion of the demonic [[victim mentality]] (Gn. 3:1-5), had destructive effects upon society, in particular upon its weakest members. The emphasis on social justice may well have been a means to justify a basic rebellion against authority in general, in particular fathers, headmasters, police officers, soldiers.

The rejection of Biblical and traditional sexual laws and promotion of sexual promiscuity and [[homosexuality]] would result in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, with a half million of Americans dead because of [[AIDS]].

Colleges and universities largely became the seminaries of the new cultural "religion" and its ethos.<ref>Lewis H. Gann, Peter Duignan, The new left and the cultural revolution of the 1960's: a reevaluation. pp. 39-41</ref> Revised standard studies and new courses, such as gay studies, became part of the new orthodoxy, with a later neglect of core subjects.<ref>http://www.hacer.org/usa/?p=91</ref> . Relative few teaching posts became staffed by conservatives.<ref>50% of American college faculty in 1999 identifying themselves as Democrats, and only 11% as Republicans.72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right". North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1999. The Berkeley Electronic Press</ref><ref>http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2</ref><ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17963/liberal_bias_in_our_schools.html</ref> While early attempts by students to gain positions of administrative power in their institutions had only limited success, its graduates would soon fill positions of power in informational, educational, and governmental agencies, and as by a Fabian strategy achieve its victories.

Religiously, a notable number of young seekers for a better reality became part of what some term a [[Fourth Great Awakening]], out of which evangelical churches such as [[Calvary Chapel]] began and grew to be significance denominations.

====Responses====
Reactions to moral decline in America have been varied. The [[liberal media]] and places of "higher" education (such as [[Harvard University]]) overall treated the 60's sexual revolution as a beneficial change, and a victory for its liberal ethos. Rock stars sang of and exampled - by their lives many by their death - the immorality of the 60's. Legitimate improvements in society were invoked as a means to justify the liberal movement as a whole. As regards faith in God, [[John Lennon]], who later (1971) would promote his godless fantasy with the song ''Imagine'', remarked in 1966 that the [[Beatles]] were more popular than Jesus Christ. In 1965 and 1966 Time magazine reported on the a growing sense that "God was dead",<ref>Time, Theology, Friday, Oct. 22, 1965</ref><ref>Time, Religion, Apr. 8, 1966</ref> - though 5 years later it would be reporting on the notable [[Jesus Movement]]<ref>Time, Religion: ''The New Rebel Cry: Jesus Is Coming!'', Monday, Jun. 21, 1971</ref><ref>http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2008/10/25/time-magazine-the-jesus-revolution</ref> Attempts to impugn the authority of the [[Bible]] continued to increase, with more recent efforts seeking to impose more specious liberal interpretations of it.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm''More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus''Dec. 10, 2008] [[Robert Gagnon]]</ref> The term "[[Secular-progressives|progressives]]" began to be more often used to describe liberals, while their own form of historical [[revisionism]] was increasingly seen.

Among strong conservatives, the most consistent voices of opposition have been Evangelical "preachers of righteousness", exhorting repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ. Moral separation from worldly living was enjoined, and some confronted social problems more directly, such as in actively opposing slavery in America, and evils such as drunkenness. Beginning in the late 1800's and continuing, Christian groups such as the [[Salvation Army]] became more evident, ministering to many of those who directly or indirectly suffered due to immorality.<ref>Gwendolyn Mink, Alice O'Connor, ''Poverty in the United States: an encyclopedia of history, politics ...,'', Volume 2, pp. 645-648</ref> Around the turn of the 20th century and up until he died, revivalist [[Billy Sunday]] (1862-1935) preached both salvation, as well as against the evil's of drink, etc. Also during the early 1900's, [[Fundamentalists]] began to become a distinct movement, combating liberal Christianity and its resultant moral laxity. Later, parachurch ministries, such as [[Focus in the Family]], and [[Jerry Falwell]]'s [[Moral Majority]] arose, seeking to strengthen Christians and oppose an increasingly perverted, persuasive, and pervasive hedonistic culture.

Conservatives sought to make good use of broadcast means, with conservative talk shows gaining in popularity. With the rise of the [[Internet]], conservative sites such as the [[Free Republic]] enabled large numbers to interact against liberalism, which also acquired their Internet venues. In response to the liberal slant of the Internet encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]], online conservative encyclopedias such as [[Conservapedia]] were created and grew.

Liberalism in general reacted to opposition with renewed efforts to promote practices such as pre-marital sex and abortion, and later, homosexuality, while often portraying themselves as victims of repression. The [[Fairness Doctrine]], once used for a period of time before to curtail conservatism, was threatened to be brought back. Addressing those who cried against "imposition of morality" by Christian conservatives who sought to preserve or restore traditional values, Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Daniel Lapin argued,
<blockquote>
the secular Left has introduced sexual indoctrination and condom distribution to eleven-year-old public school students. It has made the enjoyment of tobacco the moral equivalent of child molestation. It has dramatically increased illegitimacy in America. It has created an entertainment ethos that brings smut and vulgarity into our living rooms. Take an honest look at the values that the secular Left has already succeeded in forcing down the throats of religious Americans. How can anyone honestly confront the changes that have been inflicted by the secular Left and worry about the changes that the religious Right might force down our throats. I contend that the values concerned Christians desire for America are not really changes, but simply the return to an earlier and legitimate status. If you fling an invader out of your land, back over the border he illegally crossed in the first place, you are not guilty of aggression. It is called self-defense. You are worried that the religious Right might succeed in forcing their values onto us? I am worried they might fail, for they are our values too. Or at least they ought to be.
<ref>America’s Real War, (1999, Multnomah Publishers; Quoted in http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/moraldecline.php</ref></blockquote>

A rare dissenting voice among a mainly liberal group was moderately conservative [[Democrat]] [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]], who wrote ''Defining Deviancy Down'' (1993). Moynihan argued that, due to the "moral deregulation" of the 1960s,
<blockquote>
the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can "afford to recognize" and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the "normal" level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of "old" standards, and accounts for much of the present "cultural war" such as proclaimed by many at the 1992 Republican National Convention.
</blockquote>

He further sounded a warning that,
<blockquote>
there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure - that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.
</blockquote>

A minority of other voices also offered objective intellect analysis. In ''The new left and the cultural revolution of the 1960's: a reevaluation'' Lewis H. Gann, Peter Duignan, (Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace) observed (in part),
{{cquote|The youth culture of the period made a profound impression on the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. The youth culture also had strong echoes in what was then the communist world. Youthful revolutionaries, mostly middle class and college educated (a minority within the youthful age cohorts as a whole), meant to build a new utopia. The youth culture gained strength at a time when massive cohorts of baby boomers seemed to overwhelm the campuses. The cultural revolution failed in the short term. No Western government was ever in the slightest danger of being overthrown. Most student revolutionaries were reabsorbed by the "system" that they had professed to hate...Yet overall, the cultural revolution did far more harm than good by glamourizing drugs, by denigrating traditional values, by defaming "formal democracy" both in the United States and elsewhere...But a number of important movements were spawned by the New Left: ethnic studies, multiculturalism, relativism and political correctness, radical feminism, and gay and liberated youth. Of these, "political correctness" was most destructive of American institutions and values. The New Left's disastrous legacy was a crusading determination to reduce the humanities to a "politically correct" agenda, to smash the shackles of traditional sexual morality, to liberate youth from their elders, and to entrench entitlements and affirmative action into the American way of life.<ref>http://www.hooverpress.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1227</ref>}}

==See also==
*[[Morality]]
*[[Immorality]]

==External links==
*[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html RevealingStatistics]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=08yN1Oyk2ZAC&dq=Frothingham++%22History+of+the+Rise+of+the+Republic&source=gbs_navlinks_s Richard Frothingham, ''The rise of the republic of the United States'']

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Religion]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Virtues]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

{{liberalism}}

Deliberate ignorance

2012-01-19T06:12:05Z

JasonDavidson: oops

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Related concepts are [[wishful thinking]] and the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]].
* Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while [[special pleading|ignoring the faults of one's own]] (a particularly [[Liberal]] fault).
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
* Believing sentimental fallacies about public figures even when all the objective facts clearly indicate that said fallacies are false.
* [[Liberals]] who claim that the [[first amendment]] says that public officials are not allowed to acknowledge America's Christian heritage.

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
* "That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore [[black-swan fallacy|cannot be true at all]]

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This is only referring to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Deliberate ignorance

2012-01-19T06:11:47Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction(s). Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Related concepts are [[wishful thinking]] and the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materTypo correction(s). Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.ialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]].
* Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while [[special pleading|ignoring the faults of one's own]] (a particularly [[Liberal]] fault).
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
* Believing sentimental fallacies about public figures even when all the objective facts clearly indicate that said fallacies are false.
* [[Liberals]] who claim that the [[first amendment]] says that public officials are not allowed to acknowledge America's Christian heritage.

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
* "That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore [[black-swan fallacy|cannot be true at all]]

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This is only referring to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Christian Metal

2012-01-19T06:09:57Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction(s). Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

'''Christian Metal''' is a name for bands whose genre is [[Heavy Metal|Metal]] music, but their lyrics are spiritual. Christian Metal is not at all satanic, anti-Christian, and doesn't promote suicide or violence<ref>http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/extol_lyrics_6528/blueprint_dives_lyrics_25619/pearl_lyrics_280397.html</ref><ref>http://www.sweetslyrics.com/610948.Kutless%20-%20Loud%20.html</ref><ref>http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/rob_rock_lyrics_3533/holy_hell_lyrics_25987/im_a_warrior_lyrics_284171.html</ref><ref>http://www.christian-lyrics.net/artist/skillet/track/whispers-in-the-dark-lyrics.html</ref>, but preaches the gospel<ref>http://www.metalforjesus.org/friorfoe.html</ref>. Christian Metal bands are often straight forward and Christian in their lyrics, but they sometimes use metaphors to make their lyrics sound dark, especially in the Xtreme Metal genres, although they usually are Christian.<ref><http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1667259/Narnia-In-His-Majesty's-Sevice-Lyrics</ref><ref>http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/rob_rock_lyrics_3533/holy_hell_lyrics_25987/im_a_warrior_lyrics_284171.html</ref>

== History ==
Christian Metal began in the 1970s during the Jesus Movement, as Hard Rock and Metal was created first. Popular Christian Metal Bands in the 1970s are:
*Resurrection Band (Hard Rock)
*Jerusalem (Metal)
In the 1980s, [[Stryper]] became the first Christian Glam Metal Band, and helped Christian Metal Gain Popularity. In the 1990s, Christian Metal lost popularity, as other styles of Christian Music such as Christian Hip Hop/Rap, and Christian Grunge became popular. In the 2000s, Christian Metal made a comeback into Christian Music, and Stryper was in live performances for the first time in 10 years. Many bands gained popularity, some of them having started in the 1990s. They are:
*[[Kutless]] (Hard Rock)
*[[Skillet]] (Hard Rock) ''started in the 1990s''
*Demon Hunter (Metalcore) ''started in the 1990s''
*Narnia (Power Metal) ''started in the 1990s''
*Rob Rock (Power Metal)
*Divinefire (Power Metal)
*Extol (Black Metal)
In 2005, Stryper came out with their new album: Reborn. In that album, Stryper changed their sound, so they can make a comeback into Christian Music.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== See Also ==
*[[Heavy Metal]]
*[[Christian Rap]]
*[[Christian Popular Music]]
*[[Christian Rock]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.metalforjesus.org/ Metal For Jesus]
[[Category:Christian Rock]]

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2012-01-19T06:08:17Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction(s). Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

{{debate-science}}

== Contrary evidence ==
You all might want to take a look at [http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804 this article], which offers some highly embarrassing details on [[Albert Gore, Jr.]]'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser [[Sin#Environmentalism|sin]]s against the environment.

# A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in ''The New York Times'', no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
# The article reiterates the accusation of [[special pleading]] against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":<blockquote>The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."</blockquote>
# And now ''The Tennesseean'' (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''The above points about Al Gore have nothing to do with global warming, and perhaps should be moved to some anti-Al Gore page.''[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== No ==
What information do we have that we can prove? We have statistics that can’t be denied, but when the statistics were presented, were they manipulated to serve the speaker’s cause. Could they be interpreted in different ways? As Evan Esar said, “Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions,” and as Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” Also, there has not been a control experiment (not possible with today’s technology) done to see whether any assumptions that have been made are true or even possible. So how can anyone (especially Al Gore) say so confidently that humans have caused any change in the climate when there are many other possibilities? He or she cannot. Besides, this would not be the first time a politician (like Al Gore) has been terribly confused or lying through their teeth to increase the disapproval rate of a political enemy (or any other way this debate may be helping Gore).

Al Gore is giving the worse case scenario on many of the catastrophes (Al Gore mistook the oceans rising 20 feet for 23 inches, United Nations estimates for the result of the melting of the polar ice caps, or was that just more propaganda), that of course, “will happen” if the world population does not act. Of course his threatening words come from scientists who “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence.” (Al Gore) So in other words scientists “don’t know… They just don’t know.” (Al Gore) No one can base the truth or much of an opinion on “They just don’t know.”

Mr. Gore’s website for his movie ''An Inconvenient Truth'' presents very little scientifically proven fact. In fact, under the link "The Science," [(http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/)] Al Gore only says that carbon dioxide naturally keeps our planet warm and he tries to convince his readers that his assumptions that the greenhouse gases are actually affecting the climate in a negative way by saying, “The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence,” Have you ever heard of bribing, blackmailing, or scaring scientists by making them think they will lose their grant money if they disagree with Gore (I am not saying Gore is bribing or blackmailing, anonymous people could be). Instilling fear worked in Hitler’s regime (I am not making a comparison just an observation). Then he continues on and on about what he thinks will happen if global warming is not stopped (considering the innumerable mistakes he has already made in this argument there is not much science in that). What he does not say is that scientists know (they do not know) that global warming “is the result of our activities,” (Al Gore's website for his movie) or even exists. He fails to address other possibilities for the causes of catastrophes that he “believes” will occur, is occurring , or has occurred as a result of global warming (droughts, hurricanes, etcetera). Like why is global warming the culprit for some natural disaster instead of… For example, the Dust Bowl in the U.S. was caused by poor farming practices, which made the soil too loose, and drought set in. It was not global warming, or anything else.

Then there is the other side of the argument. They completely deny that it is getting warmer; yet, they agree that the average temperature has gone up one degree. It could be a natural occurrence. There is not any evidence that means we should forget about this possibility.

So what side do I support? Each side has its faults (I have found more faults on the global warming is real side), but I cannot support the side that says global warming has been started by human practices. I do not support global warming mainly because there is not enough evidence; just one group’s assumptions. So I want more evidence (not statistics) in order for me to be concerned about and support the fight against global warming.--[[User:Shna|Shna]] 19:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersey, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual amount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you referring to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching amount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal amount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are already highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't believe that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers would never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]

:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.

:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.

:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''

:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. [[jwcddd]]

:And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is ''exclusively at fault'' in your so-called process.

:Your argument assumes that [[global warming]] is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which [[Antoine Lavoisier]] disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or [[Benjamin Franklin]] determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

:I say again: ''your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define.'' And because of that, it is for ''you'' to show that global warming ''is'' a fact, and that mankind is ''at tortious fault'' for same.

:You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

:# Duty of care.
:# Dereliction of duty.
:# Injury.
:# Damage.

:Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

:I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terry for your four points above
::#The duty of care is ours by default, human race. We are the only ones advance enough to cause change on a global scale.
::#Our dereliction of duty is evident in that we avoid taking responsibility for our duty, keep polluting even though we know it is bad by claiming that there are other factors as well that add to the pollution.
::#Displacement of species of animals, by changing the climate many animal species are moving to newer areas. This is causing an increase in invasive species and choking out native species.
::#The destruction of ice shelves, increased destruction of forests and the accelerated extinction of species. Seems to be quiet a bit of damage.

What I can not understand is why so many people are so resistant to policies and guidelines that promote a healthy environment? Are we that greedy that we are willing to continue to pollute and cause destruction of nature?

I saw Jerry Falwell on TV last night reporting against global warming. How can any minister encourage the continuation of wasteful actions in regards to environmental resources? I would think that anyone who is a man of god would cherish the creation of god and not work to destroy it. Perhaps we should take some lessons from the Amish.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend.
Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny.
Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. [[jwcddd]] 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and [[propaganda]]. ''I'' have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an [[intentional tort]] against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.
:As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would certainly agree with the above. Add to it that if carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, then vegetation will take it up--along with the increased rains.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I guess Terry and Aardvark that you both do not understand chemistry and radiation. Yes more water vapor means more clouds, however clouds do not block the right wavelength of light. You can receive sunburn on a cloudy day, UV penetrates many cloud masses and reaches the earth. When the light is reflected back to space however its energy is reduced and is stopped from escaping the atmosphere by the clouds thus causing convection in the atmosphere. If you do not believe what I just stated then think about Venus, the atmosphere is cloud covered all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::On to water vapor. Water vapor has high heat absorption and is very effective at retaining heat. So the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the higher the temp. Since the higher the temp the atmosphere has a greater ability to gain more water vapor. This cycle continues till equilibrium is established however by our adding of other green house gasses this equilibrium is continually offset.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aardvark, lets put this in perspective about the natural systems cooling the earth again. Paper trash breaks down over time in dirt and weather. But the more paper trash we add to the system the longer it takes to break down. If we continue to add over what the system can break down normally we end up with a build up. Same thing with the Green house gasses. The Atmosphere can breakdown certain gasses however with the continual addition of gasses we end up overwhelming the reactions that break the gasses up. If you exceed the limits of the natural system it will not work.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::TerryH, additional CO2 and deforestation renders your statement moot. We have been exceeding what vegetation can keep up with for years, if not then the hole in the Ozone would have closed or remained unchanged. We are not seeding new rainforests at the rate we are cutting them down, nor are we replacing the vegetation that we remove when expanding our living areas. Come now think about what you just said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I am a scientist who has done a study which shows that mankind is incapable of determining whether there will be global warming. My findings, the summary of which follows, knocks the foundation out from under those who predict warming.

Essentially, it shows that the warming "experts" are unable to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature. I compared predictions of the National Weather Service to actual outcomes for next-day temps, and found that the "experts" were right only 11% of the time. I also found that if, instead of using their education, experience, software, supercomputers, and satellites, they had merely said tomorrow's temp will be the same as today's, they would have been right 16% of the time-- a considerable improvement.

The conclusion of my study is that, since the "experts" can only predict tomorrow's temp with 11% accuracy, they can't predict the temp 36,000 times farther out into the future.

My study isn't published yet, so sorry, I can't provide a reference. Earl100.

:Then it's not only worth nothing at all, but you clearly don't understand the difference between climate and weather.
:I have doubts as to whether you are even a scientist after that. You're certainly not a climatologist, I can see that.
:--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 12:12, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe you have a skewed understanding of how science works. What you have proposed with the scientist fudging their data would be one of the largest conspiracies in our time. A scientist's livelihood is 100% based on their ability to accurately report and research. If one is found fudging they would lose everything, the science world is very unforgiving and hard to compete within. Grant money is not just given out, a scientist's credentials and background research are judged for awarding of grants.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[User:Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

:[[Global warming]] is evident, but it's neither man's fault nor any cause for alarm. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. And [[solar variation]] drives temperature. A couple of degrees of additional warmth will be good for crops and will reduce [[extreme weather]] events like [[hurricane]]s. So there's no need to stop anything. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh... Better crops? Thats nice for you US citicens, but how about in countryes near equator? How about desertification and melting polar ice? And it will reduce hurricanes? Global warming has been alleged to do just the opposite, to create more extreme weather phenomens, like hurricanes. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181]. (And damn those math questions every time i post, need to click several times to get an easy one ;) ) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Have you considered the implications for the US economy as the bread basket moves north to Canada? Or the Pentagon's report on [http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231&url=/UploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?id=28566 Abrupt Climate Change] and national security? One of the biggest dangers of a warming climate (natural or not) is that the top of the ocean becomes less salty (from melting ice sheets) and some of the ocean currents stop. This in turn makes for more extreme weather - droughts (the pentagon report goes into questions of water disputes between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico, though these would probably be minor compared to those going on in Asia - which would get worse). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of upsetting the young earth crowd, we have the Great Permian Extinction Event, as this is 251 million years ago there were no humans on the planet to contribute a thing to gobal warming. This was a rise of about 20 degrees and wiped out most 95% of life on earth at that time. We have had large numbers of ice ages as well most without human intervention and there is very limited proof that at one stage we might have had an ice ball earth. What I am getting to here is that rising vulcanism can in of itself raise global temperatures and other factors as well. This is what I am certain of, we are in a warming phase, and I am also certain that we are probably adding somewhat to that problem. Finding more efficient ways of using our resources is a smart thing for many reasons and this would seem to be another. Finding better ways to reduce carbon dioxide output and sequestering co2 would not seem to be out of the question. The fact that we can use such gases to revitalize our US oil fields seems to be a good use of waste gases that we don't want to emit. Rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes along with crop disruptions are not in our best interests. Remember we are not talking about the end of life but no dominate species has ever survived an extinction event and I for one don't care to bet the future of the human race on us being the 1st. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:17, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

== OTHER ==

While there may indeed be global warming there is no clear culprit. Even the scientist's
argue over who/what did it...

you know most of the "educated" people of the old times said the earth was flat...but it wasn't.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually there wasn't and isn't a sailor then or now that would have told you that the earth was flat. Every time you see a ship rising above or sinking below the horizon it gets confirmed. There was that belief but it wasn't nearly as wide spread as we now believe. It was an ancient greek that had the 1st accurate measurement of the globe and that was common knowledge for most mariners, navigators, and mapmakers. Mr. Columbus and Spain's royal court excepted of course. [[User:Tirronan|Tirronan]] 14:22, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

"Yes" or "No" answers don't fit. Global warming was evident from about 1890 to 1940, and from about 1978 to 1998. Global cooling was evident from 1940 until well into the 1960s, and after 1998. So, is it evident? Yes, sometimes, and sometimes no. Is it the fault of man? Atmospheric CO2 levels are well over the normal level, even allowing for natural cycles in CO2 in the atmosphere, and these levels have been on the rise since the start of the industrial revolution. It is also well proven at this point that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, for that matter, are water vapor, and methane which is released by animals and humans. By far the most potent greenhouse gas, is water vapor. Yet we know that CO2 levels have been rising since, and because of, the industrial revolution, making them the fault of man, and yet there is not all that much correlation of the CO2 increase with actual temperature changes. I believe man-made greenhouse gases probably do have a small effect on temperatures, perhaps less than 20%. Global warming alarmists have yet to adequately explain why if CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been on the rise since the start of the industrial revolution, there was such as sharp period of global cooling for over two decades starting in 1940? The only way they can get around this is by claiming that man-made global warming only started recently, but that negates their claim that burning coal and driving SUVs are the major causes of global warming. Coal was the main fuel for the early industrial revolution, and cars today put out about 10% of the exhaust that they did before catalytic converters were adopted. There is of course the possibility that we would have seen more global cooling from 1940-70 if not for human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, but even if that is the case what this clearly means is the human-caused portion of the problem is well outweighed by other natural and uncontrollable factors. In other words, man trying to stop it, with the Kyoto treaties or anything else, will have such a negligible effect on the actual temperatures that we will literally have dumped billions of dollars down a black hole. That said, man-made CO2 levels in the atmosphere are well over their natural range. We can and should, prudently and rationally, have a common sense policy discussion about long-term reduction in CO2 emissions and cleaner energy sources. But the global warming alarmists with their end of the world, "we're DOOOMED!" nonsense, are right now the biggest impediment to having a sober discussion of this issue. Al Gore's problem is he is just like any other doomsday cultist. He believes in the end of the world just around the corner, and he wants to destroy the planet and make us all drink kool-aid in order to save it. A far bigger crisis than global warming right now is saving the planet from the likes of Al Gore, who want to run roughshod over everything about our society and economy in the name of "saving the planet". If anything, the free market is automatically going to find the solutions. [[User:GregL|GregL]] 21:20, 26 February 2009 (EST)

=== Is everyone missing the point? ===
I think that most people miss the point on this debate. First, I am not in the camp who says that this is some liberal conspiracy. I know a number of conservative scientists who believe this to be true. Second, it really does seem that 95% of the science supports it. Has Al Gore's support for it made us conservatives disagree with those scientists more? Probably. But all of this is irrelevant. Here's what's relevant:
* We spend $700M per day on foreign oil.
* We aren't doing much investing in nuclear, wind, solar, algae fuels and the like
* The countries we give $700M to are generally filled with people who hate us.

So you see, it doesn't really matter if there is global warming or not. It doesn't really matter if we caused it or not. What matters is we are giving money to terrorist countries so we can have gas. We are the best country in the world, so surely we can figure out better ways to make and use power, right? This should be our goal for the future: to get off foreign oil. It will create jobs, and maybe even bring some sanity (like those libs Stewart and Colbert propose) to the populace. China is already investing in some of these technologies, and we certainly don't want to fall behind those communists, do we?

And I will say this: if the scientists are right and we're going to have ocean swells and other horrible problems, getting off foreign oil would indirectly please them. If those guys are right, I'll feel dumb, but I might be underwater. That would suck. So getting off foreign oil indirectly pleases the tree huggers, the bad scientists, creates domestic jobs, and it makes us stop being nice to wackos like Saudi Arabia. That's a win-win-win-win situation. [[User:Ctown200|Ctown200]] 14:20, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

:I think you have the right ideas, here. I don't believe global warming is happening at all, I haven't seen any evidence for it and Climategate gave us clear evidence that here's a big scam going on. But, there're things that countries SHOULD do which people want to do in the name of stopping global warming. Just because they want to do it for a different reason, doesn't mean a conservative should disagree with it for the the sake of it. Some pollution - like that which damages places of beauty and our beaches and ocean - should be cut down on, and western countries should do all that they can to reduce their usage of Eastern oil. Conservatives should support liberals on some of these measures, and in return they should stop the nonsense about Carbon Dioxide emissions. [[User:StephenKP|StephenKP]] 14:49, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Tim Ball is a Canadian meteorologist who asserts (e.g. CKNW radio in Vancouver
Canada) that in the 8 years 1999-2006 (inclusive) there was, by agreement of
both side of the 'global warming' debate, a slight COOLING trend. Since 'we all know'
that GW (Global Warming) is caused by man and that it is CO2 emitted by man that is
causing GW, what would explain the 8 years of a cooling trend? To explain this
we need another man made activity that would counteract those 'zillions' of tons
of CO2 produced by man between 1999 and 2006. Let me think, ...., I've got it, it's
another gas which has a cooling effect. Yes, you guessed it, it's laughing gas
(used by dentists to sedate patients). [Submitted by Brent Rooney <stopcancer@yahoo.com>
on 25 May 2007]

American History Homework Three Answers - Student Two

2012-01-19T06:03:49Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction(s). Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

steven M is finished.

'''1.''' The Foreign policy under the Articles was as difficult for the colonies as it might be if the colonies were completely different soveriengties. There was virtually no centralized power for any of the states to answer to; the Fed could not levy any taxes so they had no money to control the people. the states became totally divided.

: Good points.

'''2.''' I.gives power to a bi-cameral legislative branch, the [[Congress]]

II.gives power to the executive branch, the president.

III.gives power to the judicial branch, the Supreme Court.

: Correct. "Judicial", not "judicial".

'''3.''' He led by example with his strong personality. and Although intelligent, he did not trust himself to be King giving up power to the less intelligent masses: thats humility!

: Good points, but work on grammar. E.g., not "thats" but that's (note apostrophe).

'''4.''' The cotton Gin was a machine for refining raw cotto, removing the plant parts from the white fluffy part, taking care of hours of tedios work in minutes. This made the southern States very productive, the worlds wealthiest cotton exporter as a matter of fact. Prosperity contributed to the idea that the South could be independent.

:Good points.

'''5.''' The pillars in the cartoon represent states supporting the Federal government. the hand in the cloud is the Hand of God saving Massachusetts during [[Shay's Rebellion]].

The cartoonist, Ben Russell, was a [[federalist]], favoring power to the federal government rather than States retaining power. Because the Rebellion took place under the Confederation, Russell held that it showed the need for a strong Constitution to stop insurrections like this quickly. Under the Articles, things were clearly getting out of hand.

:Excellent!

'''6.'''the Northwest Ordinance told Europe they wanted to settle the territory. and established how new states were made.

:Good, but work on grammar provide more detail. (Minus 1).

'''7.''' the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the nullifiying of them, were the most significant event, politically, during Adams' administration. this was the first time States declared a law of Congress unconstitutional.

:Good. Note that it is "nullifying", not "nullifiying".

'''H2.''' The Anti-Federalists had some great points, particularly the Anti-Federalists during the presidency of John Adams. for one, The Alien and Sedition acts were bad laws, (thats a good point, right?).

Pertaining to federalism and the Articles of Confederation, the good that the Anti-Federalists stood for was almost as obvious. if too much power was diverted to the Federal government, a centralized system would soon grow and take control of the country. the principle of State Sovereignty is important, for every state is different and a law applying to California may not work for New Jersey. Today more than ever, this has happened. The federal government makes sweeping laws, acting in Education, civil rights, and many other issues we'd be better off if they would just keep their nose out of. The state governments are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. Maybe if Thomas Jefferson could return from the grave....

:Well done!

'''H4.''' In the Whiskey Rebellion, the presence of George Washington was obviously the primary reason that violence was halted. Why?

During Shay's Rebellion, only a few years earlier, several hundred soldiers could not in the least dissuade Daniel Shays or his followers. the soldiers and sergeant and Captains had more authority than the farmers. How can one voice have more effect than 100?

The President works in forien relations, appointing judges, vetoing legislation: these things do not make him irreplaceable, those jobs could be split up to other branches. What makes him so special? Why do we need a president?

He is one man. that makes the difference. he can make decisions faster than a group. he is one face; when other countries want to speak to America, they want to speak to the president. He's the face of the country, politically, militarily, economically.

He's is respected, his voice carries a lot of weight, people listen too him. I remember asking my mom when i was young "hey mom, can the president make laws?" "No," she said, "but he can suggest a law for Congress to make." Well a lot of good that does, i thought. Anybody can suggest a law for Congress to make. Why does every representative do what the president wants? Well part of the reason is because he is the head of the Party, so if a Congressman dosn't listen to the president he's less like to get funding from his party for his next re-election.

But i still haven't addressed why exactly we need a president. There is one thing a president does which I have not yet mentioned.

After the Whiskey Rebellion, those who were involved were tried and convicted. These men were criminals, murderers, thieves, traitors. But then [[Washington]] did something only he would have done. Something only a president could have done. He ''pardoned'' the whiskey rebels.

Now the power to pardon might be delegated to another authority. You might say we don't need a president to pardon criminals. But the only situation where you a convicted criminal would want to be pardoned, is if you knew something about the convict. Will the Chief Justice review every convict to see if there is one worthy of pardon? No. But a president, passing through, busy with affairs of state, quelling a local Rebellion soley with the sternness of his face, might notice on his way a dissident, in need of some mercy. The judge would not have stopped the whiskey rebellion, no lawyer of politician would have thought twice about convicting these men. General, or colonel perhaps, might have stopped the rebellion; Shay's Rebellion finally ceased after half the U.S. army came to halt them. But officers would not have the power to pardon those men. He would see the faces of those rednecks, living in a shack, their whiskey their only solace. Poor men, but there is nothing can be done for them but to be hanged.

All hail the wise and gracious President!

: Excellent points about the power of the presidency!

'''H5.''' Jefferson and Madison arranged for laws to be passed in Kentucky and Virginia, pointing out the Acts were unconstitutional. Quiet frankly, I disagree with them. The Alien and Sedition Acts, although wrong, were an act of the Federal legislature, so the Federal Judiciary should have declared it unconstitutional.

Actually thats Judaical activism so maybe there's a better option. the solution, um, well maybe Jefferson and Madison were right after all. The whole point of dividing power between State and National levels is so one can check the other if they do something wrong, right? In this case, when the U.S. government acted out of turn, governments of two states corrected them. This seems like a good, innocent thing: whats wrong?

When states get too much power, they eventually want to seced, thinking they can make it out on their own. That might seem like an easier road but its catastrophic for everybody. The states cant be independent but they cant be one united conglomerate either.

Is there a equitable solution? What should have happened here? As far as can see there is no "good" option.

: You're right about how difficult the question is. There does not seem to be an easy answer. Good analysis of the issues.

: You may want to use Firefox to flag spelling errors before posting.

: Grade: 99/100.
[[Category:American History Homework Three Answers]]

Offerings

2012-01-19T06:01:43Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction. Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

{{merge with|Third Day}}

'''Offerings''' is the fourth studio album released by [[Third Day]].

== '''Songs''' ==
# ''King of Glory''
# ''These Thousand Hills''
# ''Your Love Oh Lord''
# ''Angus Dei/Worthy,You Are Worthy''
# ''Saved''
# ''My Hope Is You''
# ''You're Everywhere''
# ''Thief''
# ''Consuming Fire''
# ''All the Heavens''
# ''Love Song''

[[Category:Albums]]

Conservapedia:Are Western liberals just Orwell's party members

2012-01-19T06:00:43Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction. Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

{{debate}}

==No==

Don't be silly, there are many differences (list them below).

:My understanding if ''1984'' is that the party members were meant to represent the more authoritative side of society. I think the differences which support this include:
** The government of 1984 uses extensive surveillance and incarceration methods to govern its citizens, the liberals opposed the anti-terror laws of the more conservative parties worldwide which included the ability to use wire taps, internet monitors and the ability to detain people without charge for longer periods of time
** The party reserved sex only for procreation and removed pleasure, liberals are more likely to encourage sexual pleasure (eg sex outside of marriage)
** One of the party's slogans is that "War is Peace", liberals tend to believe that peace is won not through armed conflict but through negotiation (eg Iraq War)
** The party believes that some forms of torture are allowable to ensure social stability, liberals tend to be against all forms of torture and many interrogation techniques
:In response to one of the points below, liberals actively oppose globalisation because it could result in countries losing their cultural heritage or identity (just look at the liberal rioters at APEC summits), so I hardly think we can say they aim to conquer the world. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

There are too many similarities for it to be coincidence.

*Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
*The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.

== Alternative ( Are political parties in general the equivalent of 1984's "party Members") ==
There are similarities between political party members in general and the "Party Members" in Orwell's classic 1984.

Both Conservatives and Liberals do the following:
* One of the aims of the Party is to conquer the whole surface of the earth. This is somthing people of a political ideology constantly do.

Conservatives:
* Support surveillance of the people of the country. i.e. Wire tapping

Liberals:
* Support the stifling of free speech. i.e. Political correctness.

--[[User:Perezhilton|Perezhilton]] 19:42, 11 December 2007 (EST) Perezhilton

User:Rocky

2012-01-19T05:58:20Z

JasonDavidson: Typo correction. Cleaning out common typos across namespaces.

{{userboxtop|Rocky}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User tolerancecompromisetruth}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Critical}}
{{User free software}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User Barnstar?}}
{{User Noholedonut}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User American}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User guns illegal}}
{{User patriot questions authority}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User nowar}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User faveband|Pink Floyd}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User admires|Groucho Marx & Stanley Kubrick}}
{{User Life begins|Four months after conception}}
{{User Socrates}}
{{userboxbottom}}

{{QuoteBox|Look my lad, I took the liberty of examining that bird when I got it home, and the only reason that it had been standing there in the first place, was that it had been nailed there. --John Cleese}}
{{QuoteBox|Leave the gun, take the canolli. -- Clamenza}}
{{QuoteBox|Nag, nag, nag. Sometimes, I wish I had married the woman that I met at my bachalor party. --Peater Griffin}}
{{QuoteBox|Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Nothin', and I mean nothin' can be free. --Janis Joplin}}

I am a user on Conservapedia. I am, in fact a [[liberal]], and I would just like to point out that on the liberal page, a lot of the things that I read were in fact true. I am still a minor, so don't be too hard on me. After coming to Conservapedia, I have learned a lot however. Also, I would like to say that censorship, and that the Fairness Docterine are both stupid and annoying things that should not be in this country, or anywhere.

==Censored Eleven==

For those of you that do not know what the '''Censored Eleven''' is, it is 11 cartoons that are Looney Toons and Merry Melody cartoons that have not been allowed to be shown on TV since the late 1960's. This is because of the overly racist content in them. However, I hate censorship. I also think that by trying to take these cartoons off the market, we are trying to say that racism did not happen, which, I believe, is almost as bad as condoning it. So, here are the cartoons. Some of them are in the public domain. The ones that I have found on youtube have links to them.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDCNQoeBLvk Hittin' the Trail for Hallelujah Land] - A basic copy of both Walt Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and "The Skeleton Dance". Also, some of the characters look the same. For instance, ''Piggy'' looks a lot like ''Mickey Mouse''.
#. Sunday Go to Meetin' Time - I am trying to see this one
#. Clean Pastures - This was controversal from the begining because the censors thought that it was in violation of the Hays Code, a code which stated what could be in movies and what could not be (enacted 1930, scrapped 1968), thought that it made a mockery of religion.
#. Uncle Tom's Bungalow - This is another one that I am still trying to see.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt---f83q7g Jungle Jitters] - This film is in the public domain.
#. The Isle of Pongo Pongo - This one I know absolutly nothing about.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk36qmiVBWw&NR=1 All This and Rabbit Stew] - This cartoon features Bugs Bunny as he tricks a black person and wins his clothes. This is also in the public domain.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqb85Krkrrs&feature=related Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs] - A parody of "Snow White and the Seven Dawrfs", this film is, despite the racist content, generally considered a masterpiece. This film is a draw at small audience showings and film festavals.
#. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7536008978010161521&q=tin+pan+alley+cats&ei=C591SP_hOIT-qgL4pLjOBg&hl=en Tin Pan Alley Cats] - This is generally bootlegged and generally put up on sites and then taken down for copyright reasons. Clips that were restored were featured as supplamentry material in the ''Looney Toons Golden Collection Volume 2 DVD''.
#. Angel Puss - This is the only Looney Toons cartoon to be part of the censored eleven.
#. Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears - I don't know anything about this one either.

Although these are the only ones on the censored 11 list, there have been many more that have been taken out of circulation since this list has been created. Also, many of these have not appeared on DVD often. Here is the list.

#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEiU6GpvJf0 Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips] - This makes fun of Japanese people because it was made shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The release was protested by Japanese rights groups when it was schedualed to be released in 1991. The title refers to "nip" meaning bite and "Nip" being a racial slur for a Japanese person.
#. Confederacy Honey - This is a parody of the film "Gone With The Wind". This is the first to show Inky, who is a slave holding Elmer Fudd's horse. Inky is also in "All This and Rabbit Stew".
#. Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat - This is a Universal film. Although it shows what was, for the time, unusual to show desierable African American women, now a days, it is considered racist for showing black people as lazy and irresponsible. This is in the public domain.
#. Uncle Tom's Cabana - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. Half-Pint Pygmy - This was distributed by MGM and is included in many cartoon complations.
#. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxHfwhckcs&feature=related Making Stars] - This is a Fletcher Studios cartoon starring Betty Boop. This shows many steriotypes.

Please note, these cartoons do have very racist content in them. So, viewer descretion is advised.

==Basic View Of God==

I think that God is absolutly awesome. However, I also think that I should not force God upon anyone in order to get them to convert. Ferthermore, I think that we use God as a concept to measure our pain. For example (here is a classic), praying to God before a test that we did not study for in hopes of doing well. Then, we simply do not pray to God again until the next test. That bugs me.

==Basic View Of The Bible==

It is a good book. It's a great read. However, I also think that things should be taken in there contextually. For instance, I belive in the theory of evolution because creationism believes that the earth has been around for 6,000 years. However, they have found fossils that are 3.5 billion years old of humans with ape-like characteristics.

Although I do believe that a lot of the things in the bible are true (such as Jesus being the savior of man (I am, after all, a Catholic)), I also think that it should be read contextually. This is what was tought in my theology class and in my biology class, we are learning about evolution.

==Basic View Of The United States==

Great place to live. I love this country (and I'm not just saying that because I know that I will get a lot of complaints that I am anti-American because I am a liberal). However, I think that there are problems with this country as well. For instance, we are currently fighting a war. However, a few years ago, Congress was talking about same-sex marrage. Now, I have no problem with couples of the same-sex getting married, however, there is a war going on, and, before we focus on red herrings such as that, we should focus on rebuilding the country we have destroyed and getting our troops home safely.

==Pages Worked On==

*[[Amused To Death]]-Creator
*[[Aqualung]]-Creator
*[[What God Wants]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[Monty Python]]-Minor Edit
*[[Essay: Religion]]-Writer
*[[Perfect Sense]]-Creator (Merged With [[Amused To Death]])
*[[The Wall]]-Creator
*[[Sympathy for the Devil]]-Creator
*[[Rocky Horror Picture Show]]-Edits
*[[Is atheism a religion]]-Starter
*[[Should gay marrage be allowed?]]-Starter
*[[Finding A Topic]]-Writer
*[[Concept album]]-Creator
*[[Reefer Madness]]-Creator
*[[Debate:Is War Murder?]]-Starter
*[[Essay:Raul Kensington's Backstory]]-Serial

I would just like to say thank you to all of the people that changed and will continue to change the mistakes on my pages. I really apprechiate it.

==Question Of The Week==

This is subject to change weekly. Please send your answer to me by email and, if I recieve it, I will send you back a conformaton email. Please mark the subject as "Question Of The Week Response". Also, please not only answer the question, but also, explain why you think that. This is your time to be creative, so please, do so. Speak the truth as well, because I do not know your name.

This week's question of the week is:

What is your definition of the truth and why?

===How To Send An Email===

See the long column on the left. Keep going down until you get to that bottom subheading. Somewhere in there, it should say "Email this user". Click on that, and you should be able to email me. Remember, keep your answers as detailed as possible.

===About Last Week's Question===

Last week's question was "Is George W. Bush a great presedent?" We came down to the conclusion that Bush is a good president for the way that he has handled things such as Same-Sex Marrage and the Iraq War. 
 
I would like to thank everyone that participated in this, and I hope that you will answer next week's question.

Template:Quote

2012-01-19T05:48:17Z

JasonDavidson: This is a wanted Template. Redirecting to Template:Q

#REDIRECT [[Template:Q]]

User talk:JasonDavidson

2012-01-18T22:17:22Z

JasonDavidson:

{{welcome}}
I hope you understand the difference between Uncyclopedia and here ;) --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:14, 18 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes I do. Thanks for asking :D --[[User:JasonDavidson|JasonDavidson]] 17:17, 18 January 2012 (EST)

User:JasonDavidson

2012-01-18T22:10:51Z

JasonDavidson: create

Hello there I'm new to this wiki, but not to the idea of a wiki. I am on several like [[Wikipedia]] and [[Uncyclopedia]], just thought I'd give this place a go. Leave me a message on my talk page please.