Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:JzG

2007-09-15T11:50:46Z

JzG: mote

Wikipedia user JzG.

Talk:Sex

2007-03-21T23:09:00Z

JzG: /* A joke */ oh yes.

What about parents that want to have access to credible information on sex to educate their children? --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 01:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused as to why this page has been blocked. I am aware that its probably subject to much vandalism, but there is a valid reasoning behind allowing it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Even though the page could be an informative article, it is forbidden (currently) under commandment 3 of [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. It's not "family-friendly". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny, isn't that how families are made? :D --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Quite XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel its possible to make a family-friendly page about sex, but I respect the decision.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I concur. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This page is [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Sex|linked to]] from The [[Ninteenth Amendment]] of the US constitution, and from [[Choice]], but not from [[abortion]]. Which of these are "[[family friendly]]"? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I too find it interesting that [[abortion]] is considered family friendly but sex itself isn't. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 23:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this needs to be taken up with Aschlafly. It is clean, can be family-friendly, and is biblically described (we can use the song of Solomon, perhaps?) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the general reason is that the page has been targeted by vandals ten times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, if the page was created it could always be protected, and users could post ideas on this talk page. I really think it needs inclusion; It's awfully important, and doesn't have to be amoral or obscene or anything like that. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Check with Aschlafly first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::I was planning on it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just want to ask... does anyone else think the place holder there is sort of funny? Anyways, I hope a page about this gets made, because quite frankly it's silly to pretend it doesn't exist, and I'm sure a family-friendly article can be made, as said before. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Male and female created He them." Genesis 1:27
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived... 4:1 [[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The irony here is fantastic!!! [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 11:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Eh, that's a bit bland. How about some of the hotter quotes from the [[Song of Solomon]]? :D --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A joke ==

Dont take this offensivly, when I found that this article had been deleted and protected against re-creation, I thought it was a joke. I understand that conservapedia is supposed to be family friendly. By not having an article on it here, it will encourage younger family members to search elsewhere for the information. It would not be hard to create an article, explaining the purpose of sex, perhaps some historical references to it without going into the details of how it is done etc etc. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: What does sex have to do with families? Oh, wait... :o)
: Seriously, this won't last, I think. You can't have a project with these stated aims and ''not'' discuss sex at some level. Experience on Wikipedia indicates that "ZOMG! No article on ''foo''! The entire project should be deleted!" are spectacularly unpersuasive, the way forward is probably to write a scratch version in your user space that is within policy and then propose that be moved in. If that doesn't work, or if admins won't even discuss it, ''then'' you know the project is doomed. --[[User:JzG|JzG]] 12:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::I figured I would try and discuss it here. I really do think that not having an article here is much more detrimental than having it here. Sure, it is easy to be conservative on some issues. The challenge is writing an controversial article in a tone that is family friendly. Sure it possible, there is alot that does not need to be discussed it and alot of images that should not be included. However, If i were a kid looking for information on it (and lets face it, as some age we all become curious), and it wasent here, that wouldent stop me from searching further. If there was an article, with few details explaining the basics of it, i might accept that and not search further. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] 12:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: It's not ''that'' hard, my kids have books which manage it. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Every schoolkid knows how to use Google. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sex&btnG=Google+Search Googling for "sex"] yields Wikipedia's "sexual intercourse" article in the second position, and experience tells me it will soon be in the first. That article, BTW, tells those aforementioned kids interesting things about anal sex among other things, and has a long list of links to articles about every possible form of human sexual behavior, including many that your clientele may not consider overly familiy friendly. And you don't want a sex article in your family friendly encyclopedia? Bwahaha. Bwahahahahaaaaaa!
::::: So, looks like it's official policy then? Sex doesn't exist. I'm sure that will stop kids looking elsewhere. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I came here to learn what "conservatives" think, as they claimed it can't be put in Wikipedia. So far, I'm still confused - sex is taboo, but [[marriage]] includes a wide range of styles with multiple partners, and [[homosexuality]] can be discussed too. I cannot understand a "conservative" position that allows discussion of multiple partners of both sexes, but can't stomach an article about monogamous sex with a spouse. I haven't contributed much, because I just can't get my head around what might be acceptable. The [[divorce]] article is unlikely to help anyone who is going through it, or who's parents or friend's parents are, either! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::* I'm sure that Wikipedia does not allow an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality religion and sexuality], since it would offend our liberal sensitivities :o) [[User:JzG|JzG]] 19:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Johann Sebastian Bach

2007-03-21T23:02:35Z

JzG: Undo revision 55398 by Special:Contributions/Smokey (User talk:Smokey) riiiiight.

'''Johann Sebastian Bach''' (1685-1750) has been recognized as one of greatest composers of the Western classical music tradition since his "rediscovery" by Mendelssohn in the mid-1800s.

Bach was a devout Lutheran, and much of his music was religious in nature. Bach attributed the beauty of his music to [[God]], by writing the letters "S.D.G." or "Soli Deo Gloria" in all of his scores.

Important works include: the Mass in B Minor, the St. Matthew Passion, the Brandenburg Concerti, the Musical Offering, the Art of Fugue, the Well-Tempered Clavier, the English and French Orchestral Suites, the Goldberg Variations, and numerous church contatas and organ works, notably the Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor and the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Some of his most famous pieces are drawn from the cantatas, including ''Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring'' and ''Sheep may Safely Graze.''







Bach is considered to have been the "master of masters." He summed up his view of music as follows:<ref>http://www.americanminute.com/ (Entry for March 21, 2007)</ref>

:The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.

In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson acknowledged the religious inspiration in great music:

:It would not seem practical to teach either practice or appreciation of the arts if we are to forbid exposure of youth to any religious influences. Music without sacred music would be incomplete, even from a secular point of view.

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Sex

2007-03-19T16:15:14Z

JzG: /* A joke */ reply

User:JzG

2007-03-19T16:14:07Z

JzG: New page: User JzG on Wikipedia (admin on enWP). Christian, evangelical, have been a Methodist and an Anglo-Catholic (for the music). Waiting for the day Graham Kendrick's voice breaks so I can jo...

User JzG on Wikipedia (admin on enWP).

Christian, evangelical, have been a Methodist and an Anglo-Catholic (for the music). Waiting for the day Graham Kendrick's voice breaks so I can join in with the songs :-)

Talk:Sex

2007-03-19T16:01:03Z

JzG: /* A joke */ heh! A serious reply