Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2011-04-05T16:32:52Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn: /* Please Mr. schlafly */

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:Whilst I do not consider myself a liberal, and am very much a Christian, I have observed rather the opposite, that it is conservatives, especially Christians, seem the more likely to make approval of their value system a condition of the relationship. This seems also what one might rationally expect; conservatism is by its nature intolerant of difference. This doesn't make it "wrong", as many of the things liberals tolerate I thoroughly disapprove of, but this is an irrelvance.

Whilst I am aware of the reasons why I should not do so, I make a certain degree of agreement with my value system a requirement of friendship. This does not mean that I don't endeavour to show love for people who do not, but it does prohibit me from meeting with them on a purely casual basis. And to a greater or lesser degree I imagine it's true of everyone.[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]]

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on [[user:PhoenixWright|my user page]], in this [[tabula rasa]] environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. [[User:kitefox|kitefox]]

As would I. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ann Coulter]] :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Misleading terminology==

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Where is the evidence? ==

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

:'''Conservatives''' often make approval of [[conservative]] values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[conservative]] values.

:A '''conservative friendship''' can occur wherever [[conservatives]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

:In contrast, [[liberals]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship.

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:We know [[Liberals]] all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your [[Liberal tricks]]. Reflect and improve! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a ''reflection'' of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ostracize a republican ==

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: No one is claiming anything about ''all liberals''. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Untrue, and I ought to block you for saying it - but I'm enjoying the delicious irony here too much. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that ''Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about ''all conservatives''. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:" But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"

:Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove ''nothing whatever'' about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

For another matter, the section about 'ostracize a republican' should be taken out of the article, since the website is not online anymore. The cited scource delivers a dead link and I also found no other site fitting that name. --[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 22:34, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== Since it's been a while now... ==

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the ''imprimatur'' of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: ''Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.'' and it would be just as "true". You know, [[Michael Moore]]'s book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in [[Ann Coulter]]'s "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to '''never''' concede '''anything''' to a liberal. Just some food for thought. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Don't fall into the tit for tat trap. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Huh? I was just saying that it should be an essay like Phoenix did, what do you mean tit-for-tat trap? [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", '''yes'''. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, '''no'''. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their '''friends''', (after all, that is the title of the article).
[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== No evidence for this article period ==

Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case '''whatsoever''': ''They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.'' Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.

Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.

Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at [[Bob Jones University]] you don't think they'd get flack?!

For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in '''university's''', it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from '''opinion'''journal.com), doesn't provide any proof for '''this''' article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.
::Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is '''opinion'''. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals '''''often''''' make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")
::I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the point is that liberals all too frequently '''do try''' to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see [[conditional love]]; compare [[unconditional love]].

:::Unless your are trying to censor [[Liberals and friendship|this opinion]], you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).

:::To participate as an equal in this project, you must regularly provide trustworthy information. This includes information that casts doubt on "conservative opinion". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Aug19.html original source], is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them '''opinions'''. I refer you to [[Deliberate ignorance]]: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how many of them there are. There is still no evidence. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nonsense. Observations certainly are evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::'''Evidence of what?''' ''First'', unsystematically collected anecdotal observations are subject to all sorts of biases and do not allow you to draw any conclusions about generalities. ''Second'', any evidence you have presented in the article could just as easily be evidence that '''conservatives have a tendency to whine and complain when they feel dumped or let down'''. There is certainly evidence (of a sort) there, but it does not support the conclusions, which remain unsubstantiated (and hurtful) opinion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:02, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== The summary ==

This seems to sum up to the entirely non-controversial, "shocking" observation that people with different ideological beliefs often disagree, and sometimes tensions flare. ...is there evidence that conservatives ''don't'' do that?-[[User:HankS|HankS]] 16:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Closing Arguments ==

The premise of this article is “Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of '''friendship'''. My previous arguments haven’t been on the premise, I have instead focused on the '''references''' which to the best of my understanding, do not bolster Andy’s case. They do (perhaps) show bias from liberals in other areas, but they don’t show any '''friendships''' lost due to politics.

Now, it’s a '''fact''' that many friendships have been diminished, damaged, strained, weakened, tested, or even destroyed because of politics, religion, associations with various characters, marriage, and yes, because of voting. I’m sure that there are many stories out there that will bolster Andy’s argument.

'''However''', the conclusion/Parthian shot of the article states: “In contrast, conservatives '''virtually never''' require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.” It’s '''impossible''' to prove this; it’s a classic example of [http://www.safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/negativeproof/ negative proof,] or “proving a negative”, a '''logical fallacy'''.

But just for fun, I’ll bring some sources to show that might '''disprove''' it:
*[http://liberal-debutante.com/religion/why-religion-must-change-or-die.html Katie Kish writes:] “Not only have I lost friends over being an atheist - I’ve lost jobs, been told I can’t listen to some musicians because they’re “Godly” and I’m not...”
*[http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/article.html Bruce Bartlett] was fired from his job at the National Center for Policy Analysis, because he spoke ill of President Bush.

I can go on, but it won’t prove anything.

In conclusion: To your surprise I agree with your premise! Yes! People have falling out’s over politics/religion. My problem is with your '''closing'''. There is no way to '''prove''' that Conservatives aren’t just as guilty; and to say “prove it” is a logical fallacy. (We see X but we don’t see Y, obviously Y doesn’t exist etc.)

I’ll conclude with a prayer: Let us hope that through discussion on real issues, we can work together to make the world a better place for all of us. Amen

God bless.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 05:45, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:It proves that you are unclear about the distinction between employment and friendship ([[Bruce Bartlett]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::Pray do tell what is your view of the distinction? BTW, please don't put comments in the middle of my posts. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I think you have put your finger on something useful here, DLerner. We can allow the premise, but the conclusion does not follow from it. Equally, of course, we could put it the other way around, and accept the "conclusion" but not the premise. The closing remark may well in fact be true: I for one am quite happy to believe that indeed "conservatives virtually never require acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship". What I object to, though, are the words "In contrast" - because it is surely equally true that '''''liberals''' virtually never require acceptance of '''liberal''' principles as a condition of friendship''. All the examples of liberals rejecting a friend because of his/her conservative values will do nothing to alter the fact that in general, people don't behave that badly. And finding lots of examples of conservatives dumping on their liberal friends would likewise do nothing to disprove the general truth that conservatives are on the whole pretty good to their friends. I have no problem with a Conservapedia article which displays a list of stories of liberals being mean to their friends (or any other list of alleged misdemeanors by liberals - take your pick from a large number of articles). That's all perfectly fine, and indeed, collecting such stuff seems to be the main function of Conservapedia these days. What I object to, however, is the pretense that collecting anecdotes like this can prove anything about "liberal" behavior in general. That is simply nonsense. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Closing argument needed==

Frankly this shouldn't even be a debate. If this is an encyclopedia this tabloid rubbish shouldn't be here. If it is a blog it belongs. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 21:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Drivel==
The arguments in this article are weak as Hercules is strong. Essentially it is a long list of quotes and anecdotes. This is the weakest class of evidence after pure hearsay. For all I know, for every story of conservatives being "persecuted", there might be 314 stories of conservatives being given the
red carpet. You should use proper evidence or delete this article. I personally nominate this article for deletion, on the grounds of being so ludicrous that RаtionalWiki couldn't better it, even if they tried. Please bear in mind that the burden of proof is on the author, as one user forgot during the discussion on Professor Values. [[User:Innsmouth|Innsmouth]] 16:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Delete? ==

Andy, there's been alot of talk about deleting this page, so why don't put up a delete nomination, I'd do it but I'd probably be blocked again. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It won't be deleted and likely won't be moved. I'd say focus your efforts on improving the article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You people keep saying that as if this article had any value to begin with. Listen to me, this article is bunk, rubbish, trash, nonsense, drivel, propagandist and a whole lot of other adjectives. The only way for it to be improved is it's nomination for deletion. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

And when I nominate it Andy of course removes the [[Conservapedia:AFD Liberals_and_friendship|nomination,]] Well I should have expected as much. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:41, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Anecdotes, anecdotes and MORE anecdotes. ==

Andy, I believe you're a lawyer, would any court accept this to "convict" Libs of being mean-hearted SOG's? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

This is a thoroughly supported and well-referenced entry, and your insistence on deleting this information smacks of [[liberal bias]]. This isn't [[Wikipedia]] where [[liberal]] editors censor and delete informative entries. And we don't want to be like [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

DLerner, please do yourself a favor and become open-minded about how militant [[liberals]] sometimes behave, and how they try to intimidate and ostracize conservatives. Just observe some of the vandals here, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

[[Wikipedia]] gets a lot more vandals then here you know that. You're right Andy "militant [[liberals]] along with just about everybody in the world sometimes behave" poorly. This site is guilty itself of intimidating and ostracizing liberals who come here to help. I am one of those liberals.

P.S. According to your last note, shouldn't this article be called "Militant Liberals and friendship"?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:53, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You're right about one thing: Wikipedia does get hit by vandals ... who are often smearing entries about conservatives. There are no conservative vandals on Wikipedia or here.

:[[Liberal denial]] is rampant. I guess we have to add liberal denial of ostracizing conservatives to the growing list. Do yourself and your cause a favor by admitting to the excesses on your side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

There are nuts on all sides except the indifferent. Yes, sometimes conservatives are ostracized by liberals, but look at <big>'''title'''</big> of the damn article. Which article have you shown that proves liberals will throw out '''<big>friends'''</big> because of politics?

And pray to do tell why can't we discuss deleting it, I haven't challenged all your "liberals-like-barbecuing-babies-using-the-fire-of-a-burnt-flag-during-a-gay-wedding" articles, just this one. Do the AMERICAN thing, put it up for a vote.

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

<sigh> didn't I tell you that ''In contrast, [[conservatives]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship'' is a [[logical fallacy]], you can't prove a negative!!!!

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

When liberals want us to delete an article, that's a great reason to '''keep it''' and make it even better! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:17, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

*LOL! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reagan ==

''Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.''

Aha, so if RR had liberal friends, all conservatives must have them... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:... and presumably, by the same token, those liberals (O'Neil and Kennedy) had at least one conservative friend (Reagan). Or did they behave in a typical liberal manner and reject his friendship? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:06, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::They were pretending. See [[Liberal deceit]]. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::My dear, you have to take all of those "Liberal ______" with a grain, nay a spoon of salt, Andy's thoughts are unfortunatly not reality. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy's project, Andy's word is gospel. My dear. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::No "Good news" in it. Well if he wants he can change it back, let's not have an edit war here. Oh, and it takes big spheres to say that somebody faked a friendship without anything to back it up. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:53, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Fine, then, let's get him involved. I'm sure he's got nothing better to do. You fail to see the point. Still. My dear (condescending a**hole). -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok kids, if you can't play nice I'm going to have to turn this car around. Please stop edit warring, and stop calling each other names. If you do not follow the rules of civility, both of you will be blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed blocked "Doctor" Sandstone, but for the edit comment, not the one above. I have a feeling that might change. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:32, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

"In contrast, there are many instances of [[conservatives]] not requiring acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker [[Tip O'Neil]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]].

This paragraph destroys the whole mesage of the article... Obviously the stated liberals made friends with Reagan even though they had political differences. I don't agree with this article (as I have friends who are liberals), but I would suggest that in the spirit of the article this part should be removed.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Maybe we should keep it in as a counterpoint, and as further evidence that this article should just be gotten rid of. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
==Please Mr. schlafly==
As has been stated above, there are numerous problems with this article. The evidence is mostly anecdotal. On top of that, the topic is of your own invention, and you seem to have written it before looking for citations.
I'm new here and hoping to make some positive changes to this encyclopedia. A more professional tone would be helpful in legitimizing the concept of the site. I agree with many who have posted before me that this page has numerous problems, and would add there are many similar pages. I would suggest you delete this page. Perhaps some of this information is relevant to other articles and it could be merged. Please consider this. Pages like this make my liberal friends laugh at me.
[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 01:12, 16 December 2009 (EST)

And I'd like to add to that, please stop with the blatant lies, not like you will or anything. I've seen this happen more with conservatives than liberals. Every day in the media we are pressed with conservative values and saying that if you don't have conservative values you are evil. Labeling, hatred, all of it. I've seen it come out of the conservatives side and rarely out of the liberal side.

Also, I am a liberal, and my best friend is a conservative. I have absolutely no qualms with being friends with anyone from any political affiliation. That is unimportant to me when it comes to friendship. Tell me Andy, how many liberal friends do you have?

Talk:Liberal logic

2011-04-05T16:26:28Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

''that new laws reducing the gun ownership rate by 0.1% and a subsequent election of a left wing government are not linked''

What on earth is this tripe supposed to mean? If gun ownership had not been reduced by 0.1% a left wing government (where? how?) would not have been elected? How? By the 0.1% blockading the polling stations with their weaponry? Or is some other 'reason' bubbling away in the peculiar mind of whoever came up with such an argument? [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

: It's obvious. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:: I see that this particular example of liberal logic has now been accepted as OK, and deleted from the article. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:''"...the largely defensive weapon of gun..."'' I liked that actually! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:55, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== "except the conservative truth" ==

I wonder if anyone would agree that reverting my edit from reading "conservative views" to reading "conservative truth," and thereby implying that "conservatism = THE TRUTH" can be interpreted in light of items 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 19 of the [[extremism]] article.[[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "[[liberal bias]]" anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::ROFLMAO! [[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 18:43, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Removed "poor" ==

A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only ''poor'' counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for illustrating an embrace of [[liberal logic]], HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::Please don't make accusations; you know I'm not a liberal, and it's kind of insulting to insinuate such. If you aren't going to allow discussion of the content then please lock down the page to save me the embarrasment.

:::I read the claims again and I guess I see where you are coming from. What I meant was that you can weaken a correlation by a good counterexample. I'm not sure if you can completely disprove it, but you are probably right there, as well.

:::"Causation" depends on how the English is structured. If you mean by "causation" that something is definitely or is assumed to be a causation, then you are right, it cannot be disproved by a counter example, because it is a causation and that's that. I took "causation" to mean the more general "claim of causation", since there really are no definite causations, in a technical sense. In this case, a claim of causation can be weakened by a counterexample, and even disproved, if the counterexample is good enough.

:::Off the top of my head this is what I mean: '''claim of causation''': ''All crimes are caused by hate.'' '''Counterexample''': ''This crime was caused by poverty.'' It's a poor example that I came up with off the top of my head, but clearly you can see that some claims of causation can be disproved by counterexamples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::: HelpJazz, you're adamant that [[liberal logic]] is correct, yet you can't show why. I never said that you are a [[liberal]], but you are insistent on this point of [[liberal logic]].

:::: Your explanation above simply demonstrates that a counterexample can disprove a claim of universality about "all". That's obvious, and obviously not what this entry is talking about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm not sure I could ever explain it to your satisfaction, so I guess there's no sense in trying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:12, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: HelpJazz, please do yourself a favor, and reject the [[liberal logic]]. I'm not spending my time on this for my sake, but for yours. You have [[free will]] to persist in a mistake, or to abandon it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)

== Move on ==

Just a thought - it seems perfectly reasonable (and logical) to "move on" past the misdeeds of an '''ex'''-president, and equally reasonable to be concerned about those of a possible '''future''' president - whether McCain or Obama. Are you sure this is a good example of "liberal logic"? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Um... ==

..."one athiest who remained sane"?! Are you implying that atheists, as a whole, are crazy? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Many bright and famous people have gone crazy after embracing [[atheism]], such as [[Nietzsche]], and there is a correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Can you show me one study that at all correlates atheism and mental insanity? [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:21, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, of course he can't. Because there are not any. Even if we did assume that Nietzsche's insanity was brought on by his atheism the correlation coefficient would be infinitesimal and statistically insignificant. Correlation on its own does not equal causation. There has to be some sort of reproducible mechanism. And that's assuming that we give him the case of Nietzsche, whose mental breakdown was clearly not brought on by an atheistic philosophy. [[User:Dduerr|Dduerr]] 3 June 2008

:: Dduerr, have you looked yourself for studies? Lots of examples to suggest a correlation, and causation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:14, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I have. And I didn't find any. Since you seem to have had more success perhaps you could provide the citations? [[User:Dduerr|Dduerr]] 3 June 2008

==Fox News and Liberal Bias==

I think it's almost impossible to find a liberal who believes that Fox News has a liberal bias. Also this entry contradicts the [[Liberal denial]] article, which states that liberals tend to refuse to recognise bias in the media. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Um... (2.0) ==

Are any of the points on this article supposed to be the beliefs of liberals? Let me stress that I am not a liberal, but I do have friends that consider themselves liberals and this does not in any way resemble their beliefs.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)

: You'll have to support your claim better than that. Or should we add your approach to the list?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::As a Canadian, and thus, by American standards, a liberal, I can safely say this list is a load of bollocks and nothing more. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 21:07, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aschlafly, you have to support ''your'' claim before you even make this topic an article. It isn't fair to group people together and insult them this way.

:: And why did you imply that I am a liberal? Please, tell me what it was about my statement that made me a liberal. I have already told you that I am not a liberal. Are you saying that just because I have some liberal friends I am a liberal? I'll have you know that I am at odds with them on many issues, and I debate with them almost every day! Do ''not'' put me in that group, especially since on this site, calling someone a "liberal" is an insult. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:15, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Remove "ideologically motivated" tags ==

By claiming that the tags are "ideologically motivated" does that mean you are claiming they are unnecessary? Don't hide behind "he's a liberal, he's a liberal" to avoid doing the work required by the Commandments. (Additionally, you *removed* citations by doing a blind reversion). Unless there's a real reason for undoing the fact tags, I'm going to put them back in (along with the other changes you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:If anyone thinks we need sources for these, please help me find quotes or examples. That is more productive than mass fact-tagging. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:55, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::I think the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:58, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::When I see <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tags being placed on nearly every bullet point in such a long article, it certainly seems to be ideologically motivated -- you are questioning the entire validity of the article, rather than just one ore two points. Many of these points are clear, so the fact tags betray a case of [[deliberate ignorance]] and we won't cave into that time-wasting tactic. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 06:30, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::The difference comes when every statement where he didn't add a fact tag, he added a citation. Which leads me to believe that he did try to look for citations but couldn't find them. If he were truley "ideologically motivated" wouldn't it have been more effective for him to add fact tags to everything, so as to not provide any help to the opposing "ideology"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 16 November 2008 (EST) PS: you said "you are questioning the entire validity of the article, rather than just one or two points" -- So? What if the entire validity of the article is at issue?
:::::I can't speak for his motivations, I can only speak for the effect it creates: that the whole article looks like one big citation tag. The entire validity of this article is NOT at issue. It was created by Andy half a year ago and has had a large number of editors contribute and refine it. For Ferno to come in now and add cite tags to the majority of the points betrays either a wanton arrogance or else an ideological motivation. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::::The problem is, of the 31 points on there only 8 have citations. Many of the points just do not seem true to me, but I'm not going to get into an argument about that because I obviously have a bias. Many of them just appear to be insults and I wanted to see examples of them. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 23:51, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::::I think it's disturbing that some people think that an article is accurate just because it has existed a long time. I think it's even more disturbing that some people think that an article is accurate just because a sysop created it. No one is infallible.

::::::If an article has no sources to support it, it deserves to look like one big citation tag. Not that I would make an article that way. But for a user who has found a number of sources to be criticized for putting fact tags on the article he edited is unfair. The article has lasted long enough for someone to find sources, anyway. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I think it's disturbing that you are blowing around a lot of talk. If the points are inaccurate, then disprove them! Did you consider that maybe the reason the article isn't crowded with citation tags is because the points are accepted to be true and the questionable ones have already been removed? We don't need citations for statements like "the sky is blue" or "Hilary is a liberal". -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:21, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::I don't know how you would go about disproving some of these. For example, look at the second one. I have never heard ''anyone'' make that argument. You can't prove or disprove it because its just random. Besides, the commandments say everything that is posted should be true and verifiable. Logic dictates that this would mean when someone adds to an article they should use references, instead of just making it up off the top of their head. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 09:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Just to be clear, is this what you're referring to? ''insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it'' If so, I'm very surprised this is the one you chose. It's clear and flawed liberal reasoning: "don't knock it 'til you've tried it". They say you have to try something before you can have ''any'' basis for judging it as bad (funny how they don't pull this argument when a conservative judges something as good without having tried it). They will ask, "how can you ban homosexual marriage -- have you ever met a homosexual couple?" They might as well be asking "how can you ban homosexual activities -- have you ever seen them performed?" My natural revulsion at the thought gets labeled as "closed-mindedness", rather than the liberals being blamed for shoving such offensive thoughts into my face. This very "logic" is being used right here on Conservapedia, with the countless liberal-leaning editors who chastise me for having a negative opinion of [[Brokeback Mountain]] without having seen it. It's nonsense -- I know basically what the plot is about and can say with certainty that any positive picture it paints of homosexuality is nothing more than manipulation. But I'm being sidetracked -- to get back to the point, liberal logic diverts the issue at hand by flipping the playing field. Rather than them being on the offensive for making such wild points, they paint the conservative as being on the defensive for not wanting to open up to "new ideas". It's hogwash. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:22, 21 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::If the statements were accepted to be true, then you're right, they would not need citations. But they are not accepted to be true, which is the point of the argument in the first place! If FernoKlump thought it was common knowledge, he wouldn't have placed fact tags. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 18:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::JArneal, you're ignoring the point I already made, which is that they '''were''' accepted to be true, by Andy and the dozens of editors who have edited it in the half year it's existed. Ferno and you seem to be the only ones who suddenly have a craving to fact-tag the whole article and the more you insist to the contrary, the more it looks like [[deliberate ignorance]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:25, 21 November 2008 (EST)

The Conservapedia Commandments state that everything must be true '''and verifiable'''. If it's common knowledge then it does not require a source, but in this case it is not common knowledge. For example, "insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it ". Is it common knowledge that liberals do this? Don't you think the point could be enhanced with an example or a source? And that is what I am asking for, sources. Not fact tags.Adding fact tags is a way of asking for sources. And don't confuse my motives. I have been contributing here since March and I have never vandalized or created parody. I have only worked toward bettering this wiki. So don't assume I am only a troll. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 10:36, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:Don't worry, Klump. You do good work, and you're raising a good point. My complaint is directed only at those who use fact-tagging as a form of drive-by shooting. I may even have been the person who created the {{tl|fact}} template; I don't remember clearly that far back. We frequently do need to back up '''what we think is right''', and we conservatives should not expect a free ride. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:03, 21 November 2008 (EST)

::Klump, I found a cite for the point you isolated as particularly unverifiable. It took me less than a minute to find and I'm sure I could find other examples just as easily. This is not an obscure or tenuous point that is being made... -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:09, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:::You may have misunderstood me. I didn't say that point was particularly unverifiable, I said that it wasn't common knowledge. Earlier in the conversation I'll admit that I said that you couldn't prove or disprove it, but the point I was trying to make was that there wasn't a way to ''disprove'' it. That was a mistake on my part. But thanks for finding that source. I've added two already at the same time I added the fact tags. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 18:37, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Tags and locks==

If you spend more time justifying the placement of a fact tag than you spend on research, that is a great waste of effort. I thought this argument was settled earlier in this month, when I blocked someone for fact-tagging and then he outright refused to do any research.

Stop trying to "prove that CP is biased" with arguments on talk pages. You're not going to change anyone's mind that way. Unlike liberals, who go along with whatever their allies say, conservatives think for themselves and want to see evidence for claims.

So if you can disprove a conservative claim, by all means show some evidence that disproves it. Saying, "I already answered that" is as foolish as those academics interviewed on [[Expelled]] saying that evolution was "already proven".

Again: unlike liberals, we do not censor the opposing view here at CP. We provide them an opportunity to prove their case. I suggest you avail yourself of that opportunity. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:37, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:That might be difficult as long as the article is locked. . . . [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 08:44, 21 November 2008 (EST)

::I just edited [[Liberal logic]]. Why did you say it was locked? --[[User:PoorBoy|PoorBoy]] 08:51, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:::Apologies. I tried to edit it earlier & couldn't. Maybe the overnight editing lock was still on. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 08:57, 21 November 2008 (EST)

No problem. I used this episode as food for thought and added 3 items to the [[liberal logic]] list. Hey, that reminds me: assuming that because something once was true, it still must be true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Incorrect, not inconsistent ==

I removed several points from this list describing statements that were incorrect, but not logically inconsistent (''e.g.'', the "wondrous, pristine ANWR" point), which are probably more suited to the [[liberal lies]] article. [[User:CarlSfromMN|CarlS from MN]] ([[User talk:CarlSfromMN|Talk]]) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Wow... I don't know what to say, just wow ==

There are several several inconsistencies,stereotypes, and blatant lies in this article, but one for me stood out in my mind.

"Claim that switching from heterosexual to homosexual is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible "

I have never heard a liberal make this claim. Infact, liberals generally believe that "switching" at all from hetereosexual to homosexual or vice versa is not possible.

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-03-16T00:59:26Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

==Other Reasons==

I believe you have made gross generalizations and strawmen in this article. These "reasons for atheism" are largely what Hollywood thinks are reasons for atheists. If you are trying to go for the truth, you certainly have done a bad job of that. Now I would suggest "rational thinking" as a possible cause. It is a reason I have seen atheists in reality site for the cause of their atheism. Or "morality" would be a good one. I've seen atheists site morals as the reason they became atheists.

Talk:Thetoo.com

2008-01-27T21:49:04Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

So, let's talk.{{unsigned|Shadowpaw}}
:This sounds really... weird... and I don't think "poo" should be a word used in namespace. Why is this notable, and how does this further Conservapedia's mission?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::MexMax, that guy who added the stuff about poo was a vandal. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::Hence merge into main article as suggested. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yeah, Fox, I think that's the right answer.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I think that it is relavent as it is a Christian message board, or at least tries to be. If you are asking in terms of relavency, why is the article [[bomb]] relavent? You could merge it with Adventures in Odyssey, I have no problem with that. [[User:Jasonjannajerryjohn|Jasonjannajerryjohn]]

Talk:Thetoo.com

2008-01-27T21:47:31Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

So, let's talk.{{unsigned|Shadowpaw}}
:This sounds really... weird... and I don't think "poo" should be a word used in namespace. Why is this notable, and how does this further Conservapedia's mission?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::MexMax, that guy who added the stuff about poo was a vandal. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::Hence merge into main article as suggested. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yeah, Fox, I think that's the right answer.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I think that it is relavint as it is a Christian message board, or at least tries to be. If you are asking in terms of relavency, why is the article [[bomb]] relavent? You could merge it with Adventures in Odyssey, I have no problem with that. [[User:Jasonjannajerryjohn|Jasonjannajerryjohn]]

Talk:Thetoo.com

2008-01-27T21:46:38Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

So, let's talk.{{unsigned|Shadowpaw}}
:This sounds really... weird... and I don't think "poo" should be a word used in namespace. Why is this notable, and how does this further Conservapedia's mission?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::MexMax, that guy who added the stuff about poo was a vandal. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::Hence merge into main article as suggested. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yeah, Fox, I think that's the right answer.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I think that it is relavint as it is a Christian message board, or at least tries to be. If you are asking in terms of relavency, why is the article [[bomb]] relavent? You could merge it with Adventures in Odyssey, I have no problem with that. [[User:Jasonjannajerryjohn]]

Talk:Thetoo.com

2008-01-27T21:45:52Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

So, let's talk.{{unsigned|Shadowpaw}}
:This sounds really... weird... and I don't think "poo" should be a word used in namespace. Why is this notable, and how does this further Conservapedia's mission?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::MexMax, that guy who added the stuff about poo was a vandal. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::Hence merge into main article as suggested. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yeah, Fox, I think that's the right answer.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 10:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I think that it is relavint as it is a Christian message board, or at least tries to be. If you are asking in terms of relavency, why is the article [[bomb]] relavent? You could merge it with Adventures in Odyssey, I have no problem with that.

Thetoo.com

2008-01-24T01:33:09Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn:

Thetoo.com is an online community that focuses around [[Adventures in Odyssey]]. Thetoo stands for The Town of Odyssey. It has it's own money and mayor. It has many sections including the following: City Hall, McCalister Park, Old Gower Road, and Crestwood Avenue. The top users are 1.Catspaw, 2.COWBOY OF TEXAS, 3.ek, 4.The Top Crusader, 5.J-man, 6.WINDSHEAR, 7.Trent DeWhite, 8.Jonathan, 9.Evil Chick, 10.JesusIsAlive. The current Mayor/Cop is ek/Seha.

{{Stub}}

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.thetoo.com Thetoo]

Thetoo.com

2008-01-23T01:52:09Z

Jasonjannajerryjohn: New page: Thetoo.com is an online community that focuses around Adventures in Odyssey. Thetoo stands for The Town of Odyssey. It has it's own money and mayor. It has many sections including the ...