Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-07-02T12:32:45Z

KingHanksley: /* Some issues with this list */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else.

:::::Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::"Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution.
:::::Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::: The [[lamestream media]] do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Reversione explained ==

This entry is about '''''overrated'''''in the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Overrated Sports Stars

2012-06-28T15:26:27Z

KingHanksley: /* Some issues with this list */

== Some issues with this list ==

I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.

*Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::::Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that [[AIDS is not a gay disease]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\
:::How does his name impact anything at all? [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::MVP is by popular vote by ... the [[lamestream media]]. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

*Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican.
::The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a [[swing state]] in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::: So anything that occurs in a [[swing state]] during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a [[swing state]] as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::: If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The entry is obviously about the ''hype'', the ''overrated'' aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

*Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
::Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. [[User:AndrewTompkins|AndrewTompkins]] 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

== Becks ==

I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
:With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of [[Hollywood Values]] does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::::Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) [[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Quick question about standards... ==

Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only ''fair'' way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Tiger Woods? ==

I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time

:Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

::So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher

::::No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site [[Mystery:Why_Do_Atheists_Dislike_Underdogs%3F|not too long ago]] claim that rooting for the [[underdog|underdog]] was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --[[User:DanJG|DanJG]] 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== More removals ==

I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs.

::He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Wow, you guys don't know sports do you... ==

Ok, let's start from the top

1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).

2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.

3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.

4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.

5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.

6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.

7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.

8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.

9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.

10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.

All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

:You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
::Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? [[User:FernandoTorez|FernandoTorez]] 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

== Kobe Bryant not as valuable as Jeremy Lin ==

Is this a joke?--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

The Onion

2012-04-06T17:16:43Z

KingHanksley: /* External link */

'''The Onion''' is a weekly parody newspaper audience that pokes fun of many subjects, especially [[America]] and world leaders. It does not have any political agenda beyond making fun of authority figures and has a balanced approach to lampooning both Liberals and Conservatives. The Onion was originally published in [[Madison]], [[Wisconsin]], by students attending the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]],<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/08/28/bus2.feat.onion.site/index.html</ref> and has since grown to national distribution.

== References ==

<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.theonion.com/ The Onion]
Some favorite Onion satires:
 
Obama
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-to-take-break-from-stumping-to-preside-over,18306/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-would-make-a-bad-president-obama-says-in-huge-ca,2588/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/liberals-horrified-by-lack-of-inexperience-among-o,6561/
Liberal activists
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue,1190/
*http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-win-causes-obsessive-supporters-to-realize-h,14287/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-deletes-another-unread-moveonorg-email,2531/
Democratic Party
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-tries-to-woo-voters-by-rescinding,2167/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-somehow-lose-primaries,1117/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-debt-ceiling-deal-required-tough-concessions,21067/
[[category:websites]]

==Some Favorite Onion Satires==

The Onion

2012-04-06T17:16:25Z

KingHanksley: /* External link */

'''The Onion''' is a weekly parody newspaper audience that pokes fun of many subjects, especially [[America]] and world leaders. It does not have any political agenda beyond making fun of authority figures and has a balanced approach to lampooning both Liberals and Conservatives. The Onion was originally published in [[Madison]], [[Wisconsin]], by students attending the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]],<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/08/28/bus2.feat.onion.site/index.html</ref> and has since grown to national distribution.

== References ==

<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.theonion.com/ The Onion]
Some favorite Onion satires
Obama
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-to-take-break-from-stumping-to-preside-over,18306/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-would-make-a-bad-president-obama-says-in-huge-ca,2588/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/liberals-horrified-by-lack-of-inexperience-among-o,6561/
Liberal activists
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue,1190/
*http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-win-causes-obsessive-supporters-to-realize-h,14287/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-deletes-another-unread-moveonorg-email,2531/
Democratic Party
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-tries-to-woo-voters-by-rescinding,2167/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-somehow-lose-primaries,1117/
*http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-debt-ceiling-deal-required-tough-concessions,21067/
[[category:websites]]
==Some Favorite Onion Satires==

Campaign finance reform

2012-03-29T16:54:38Z

KingHanksley: Created page with "Campaign finance reform is the oft-debated idea that the role of money in national elections needs to be controlled. The crux of the issue is whether advertising can be restricte..."

Campaign finance reform is the oft-debated idea that the role of money in national elections needs to be controlled. The crux of the issue is whether advertising can be restricted without unduly curtailing freedom of speech under the [[First Amendment]].

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Buckley v Valeo'' that private and corporate spending to influence elections was constitutionally protected speech, even though some restrictions on contributions to candidates could be justified.

The most recent significant campaign finance legislation was the 2002 [[John McCain|McCain]]-[[Russ Feingold|Feingold]] act, which has had mixed results in Supreme Court when its constitutionality has been challenged.

President [[Barack Obama]] paid lip service to campaign finance reform for his entire career prior to the [[2008 election]] but then chose to forgo public funding and rely on his own network of donors and leverage his significant financial advantage against McCain.

As with many government regulations, rather than solve the problem campaign finance regulation has just conferred an advantage to those willing and able to exploit the rules.

Talk:Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?

2012-03-29T16:36:43Z

KingHanksley: /* Height */ new section

==Body Doubles==
Castro was well known to have body doubles available in case of an emergency. Seeing as he was in such poor health a few years ago, and is now well enough to see the Pope, it is only logical to conclude that it probably isn't the same guy.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dead-castros-body-double-looking-moderately-healthy/

[[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:29, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:The beard in the photos released today for the purported Fidel Castro is also slightly different from Castro's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:36, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::So you can't think of any seriously ill person who recovered somewhat in a mere six years? Sorry, this is daft. What evidence would it take to convince some people that Castro is still alive? Is there ''anything'' that won't be dismissed as a fake?

::People can shrink several inches as they age, by the way. Castro was 6'3" when he was young; Ratzinger is 5'7" NOW. And my beard is slightly different to how it was last week because I trimmed it on Saturday, like I do every week, to look smart in church. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:40, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, the Pope would have shrunk by more than Castro, I think. And do you think the shape of a nose changes from sloping slightly upward to sloping downward in just a few years?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::What I think is that the nose in these photos is exactly the same shape as the nose in a 2003 photo of Castro. As for the pope, as I said he is 5'7" ''now''. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:46, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Castro has a long history of using body doubles. It is unlikely that Havana would simply stop using them once he died. Or perhaps you think that the Cuban government wants Castro-lookalikes roaming the streets of Havana! Ridiculous! [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 20:50, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::I don't see why not. The main reason that dictators use body doubles is to hide their movements or act as a decoy for potential assassins. Neither of these uses is much help to a dead man. The fact is that there is no evidence ''whatsoever'' that Castro is dead, but multiple photos and videos of him and records of several meetings in the last two years with individuals including the pope and the president of Brazil. Sure, they ''could'' all be body doubles, but you can say the same for anyone. Actors also use body doubles. I can claim right now that Clint Eastwood died in 1968 and every appearance by him since then has really been a body double. By your criteria, how are you going to disprove it? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:55, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::If you display a photo of a man a half-foot shorter than Clint Eastwood with a differently shaped nose, and lacking in other facial features, as the Miami Herald just published with respect to the alleged Fidel Castro, then that would disprove it. Surely you're not claiming that photo identification is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::I don't see this difference in nose shape you're talking about and in the photos it's clear that Castro is several inches taller than Ratzinger. I've checked several photos of Castro and his various facial markings look identical to those in the latest photos. In any case there's no evidence that Castro is dead and I don't understand your insistence that he is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:13, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::The man in the picture looks like Fidel Castro to me. He seems quite hunched over, which would explain why he doesn't tower over the pope.
:::::::Additionally, it must be quite hard to find a lookalike for an 80-year-old. Cuba is not a large or wealthy country, so how many 80-year-olds could they possibly have to choose from? The probability that they would have a plausible Castro lookalike capable of fooling the pope and his retinue seems low to me - perhaps less than 1%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 06:49, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Straight from ''Weekly World News'' ==

Could a communistic state pull such a stunt? Maybe. But there are many obstacles:
*How many conspirators are there? Nurses, doctors, make-up artists etc.
*You give power to a random character, something dictators don't like very much. And you allow this character to meet the pope!

Aschlafly, this claim is as sane as the claim that ''Elvis is ALIVE!!!1!1!'' - and your case isn't any more convincing! In fact, you are looking like a lunatic quoting from ''[http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/22008/castro-flees-cuba-for-america/ Weekly World News]''. You had a hunch, and no reasonable evidence in the world will change your position! What does this say about your open-mindedness? This is almost as bad as your stance against physical reality at [[E=mc²]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Height ==

To me Castro looks significantly taller, easily the difference between 6'3" and 5'7". Look at the picture of both men seated: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/03/28/15/16/86-OZ0Nk.St.55.jpg . The standing photos are consistent with tall older men whose posture begins to deteriorate. I can't speak to the other inconsistencies but I think we should be wary of [[confirmation bias]].[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:36, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Autocracy

2012-03-27T03:35:35Z

KingHanksley:

An autocracy is a system of government in which one individual holds all state power.

They are often characterized by long, uninterrupted reigns of power and are always characterized by an utter lack of [[checks and balances]] in government. The [[communist]] governments of [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]], and [[Venezuela]] can be considered to be run by autocrats. These leaders falsely claim to rule in the name of the people, but do not operate in a [[democracy]] and actually wield great power over individuals.

The United States has many checks to prevent autocracy, including [[democratic]] elections, [[Constitutional]] rule, and division of power between [[three branches of government]]. A president can pass executive orders, but the ability to pass [[legislation]] is divided among 100 Senators and 435 representatives, and judicial power is divided among 9 justices of the [[Supreme Court]]. An unpopular president can be voted out of office by the people, and as long as the [[Constitution]] is faithfully upheld state and local governments will still have their own authority within the state.

Autocracy

2012-03-27T03:35:18Z

KingHanksley:

An autocracy is a system of government in which one individual holds all state power.

They are often characterized by long, uninterrupted reigns of power and are always characterized by an utter lack of [[checks and balances]] in government. The [[communist]] governments of [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]], and [[Venezuela]] can be considered to be run by autocrats. These leaders falsely claim to rule in the name of the people, but do not operate in a [[democracy]] and actually wield great power over individuals.

The United States has many checks to prevent autocracy, including [[democratic]] elections, [[Constitutional]] rule, and division of power between [[three branches of government]. A president can pass executive orders, but the ability to pass [[legislation]] is divided among 100 Senators and 435 representatives, and judicial power is divided among 9 justices of the [[Supreme Court]]. An unpopular president can be voted out of office by the people, and as long as the [[Constitution]] is faithfully upheld state and local governments will still have their own authority within the state.

Autocracy

2012-03-27T03:34:03Z

KingHanksley: Created page with "An autocracy is a system of government in which one individual holds all state power. They are often characterized by long, uninterrupted reigns of power and are always charact..."

An autocracy is a system of government in which one individual holds all state power.

They are often characterized by long, uninterrupted reigns of power and are always characterized by an utter lack of [[checks and balances]] in government. The [[communist]] governments of [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]], and [[Venezuela]] can be considered to be run by autocrats.

The United States has many checks to prevent autocracy, including [[democratic]] elections, [[Constitutional]] rule, and division of power between [[three branches of government]. A president can pass executive orders, but the ability to pass [[legislation]] is divided among 100 Senators and 435 representatives, and judicial power is divided among 9 justices of the [[Supreme Court]]. An unpopular president can be voted out of office by the people, and as long as the [[Constitution]] is faithfully upheld state and local governments will still have their own authority within the state.

American exceptionalism

2012-03-21T20:27:51Z

KingHanksley:

'''American exceptionalism''' is an intuition about the [[United States]], a country that occupies a special place among the nations of the world primarily because of its unique origins. The concept of "American exceptionalism" may be defined as the notion that the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals, its struggles and accomplishments, stands apart from — and, in some eyes, above — other nations.<ref>James Rosen. [http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/20/texas-textbooks-is-america-exceptional/?test=latestnews Texas Textbooks: Is America ‘Exceptional’?], May 20, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&content=38684746&pageNum=-1 Will U.S. be 'Exceptional' in Textbooks?], ''[[Fox News]]'' (foxnews.mobi), May 20, 2010.</ref> [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] once said that the United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy.

===Notes===
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041210/content/01125108.guest.html American Exceptionalism Still on Display at Horatio Alger Dinner]

==See Also==
* [[American Dream]]

[[Category: United States of America]]
[[Category: Dictionary]]
[[Category:Conservative dictionary]]

American Dream

2012-03-21T20:27:38Z

KingHanksley:

The '''American Dream''' is the easy availability of upward mobility for Americans. It means an open society with a general upward trend in social status for the majority of citizens and their descendants. This contrasts with a tightly-structured society in which the status of one's ancestors determines one's life chances, or in which government planners make all major social choices (see [[Socialism]]). For those who like to worry, the idea that the American dream is fading away for the middle class has been a common trope for over 75 years, including today, and has never been true.<ref> David Brooks (a conservative) and Gail Collins (a liberal), debate "Is the American Dream Over?," [http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/is-the-american-dream-over/?ref=opinion ''New York Times'' Dec. 9, 2009]</ref>
==Origins of the phrase==
[[James Truslow Adams]] (1878-1949), a conservative historian, was the first to name "the American Dream" and interpret it as the full realization of human potential:
:The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.<ref> Adams, ''Epic of America'' (1931) p.214-215 </ref>

==Meaning==
Cullen (2003) argues there are multiple meanings for the term, all united by core values of "freedom" and "agency," through which individuals have control over the course of their lives. Agency "lies at the very core of the American Dream, the bedrock premise upon which all else depends." Cullen traces the meaning of the term to Jefferson's classic phrase in the Declaration of Independence, the freedom to seek "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

.<ref> Cullen (2003) p. 10</ref>

In 1993 President [[Bill Clinton]] argued:
:The American dream that we were all raised on is a simple but powerful one: if you work hard and play by the rules you should be given a chance to go as far as your God-given ability will take you. <ref> Quoted in Hochschild, ''Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation'' (1995), ch. 1</ref>

===1996 Election===
The theme of the 1996 Republican convention was 'Restoring the American Dream,' and convention speeches were filled with [[American Dream]] imagery. Dole's own speech stressed individualism over collectivism and called for a broad, even multicultural, interpretation of the American Dream. In their acceptance speeches, Democrats have traditionally focused on the importance of community and society while Republicans have increasingly emphasized individual struggle. In 1996, the nomination acceptance speeches of Dole's opponents, Clinton and particularly Perot, borrowed from the Republican vision of individualism and personal responsibility which first gained popularity with the [[Ronald Reagan]] presidency of the 1980s. The persistence of American Dream imagery in the speeches of party nominees since the 1960's shows the confidence politicians place in its appeal. The presidential candidates who have best articulated the country's visions and values have been victorious.<ref>Ray D. Dearin, "The American Dream as Depicted in Robert J. Dole's 1996 Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1997 27(4): 698-713, </ref>

==Beliefs today==
The Zogby poll in Dec-Jan 2008-9 found 60% of Americans believed in the national dream.<ref> John Zogby, "The American Dream Is Still Strong: It's dipped but marches on, despite the recession," [http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1674 Jan. 30, 2009 press release]</ref>

They gave these reasons:
*59%: "I'm intelligent and work hard, so I should succeed."
*52%: "America is the land of opportunity."
*25%: "I am an optimist."
*25%: "I have a secure job or business."
*15%: "My religious faith insures I will find fulfillment."
*2%: Not sure or other.

Here are the reasons given by the 40% who say the dream does not exist:
*44%: "The powers that be don't care about people like me."
*29%: "Americans shouldn't think of themselves as special and entitled to an ideal life."
*27%: "Where I live, it costs too much, and the American Dream is just out of reach."
*14%: Not sure or other.
*10%: "I am a pessimist."
*8%: "I have been forced to take a lower-paying job."
*7%: "I don't have enough education and can't afford to go back to school."
*7%: "I recently lost my job and am out-of-work."

Among Republicans, 61% cite "America is the land of opportunity" as a reason why they can catch the dream. 49% of frequent church goers attribute their optimism to their religious faith. 76% of people under age 30 say their brains and hard work will bring them success.

Among those who reject the American Dream, 46% of those younger than age 30 believe that Americans aren't entitled to a better life, which fits perfectly into their overall more global outlook. Almost as many of those young adults (44%) say that the cost of living is just too high for them to achieve the dream. Conservatives who don't believe in the American Dream are about 10 points more likely than liberals of the same mindset to say that the powerful don't care about them. These liberals are more likely (37%) than conservatives who have forsaken the American Dream (24%) to believe Americans shouldn't think of themselves as special and entitled to an ideal life.

A different poll sponsored in spring 2009 by the ''New York Times'' and ''CBS News'' showed 72% of Americans believed it is possible to start out poor in the United States, work hard and become rich — a classic definition of the American dream. 44% said they had actually achieved the American dream, although another 31% said they expect to attain it within their lifetime. Only 20% have given up on ever reaching it. In 2005 19% defined the Dream in terms of financial security and a steady job, and 20% gave answers that related to freedom and opportunity. In 2009 fewer people are pegging their dream to material success and more are pegging it to abstract values. Those citing financial security dropped to 11%, and those citing freedom and opportunity expanded to 27%.<ref> Katharine Q. Seelye, ''What Happens To The American Dream In A Recession?" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08dreampoll.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' May 8, 2009]</ref>

Typican answers in the category of freedom and opportunity:
* “Freedom to live our own life.”
* "Created equal.”
* “Someone could start from nothing.”
* “That everybody has a fair chance to succeed.”
* “To become whatever I want to be.”
* “To be healthy and have nice family and friends.”
* “More like Huck Finn; escape to the unknown; follow your dreams.”

Those who responded in material terms gave these answers to what is the Dream:
* “Basically, have a roof over your head and put food on the table.”
* “Working at a secure job, being able to have a home and live as happily as you can not spending too much money.”
* “Just financial stability.”
* “Owning own home, having civil liberties.”

==California Dream==
Historian Kevin Starr in his grand seven-volume history of the state has explored in great depth the "California Dream"--the realization by ordinary Californians of the American Dream. California starting in the late 19th century promised the highest possible standard of life for the middle classes, and indeed for the skilled blue collar workers and farm owners as well. It was not so much the upper class (who preferred to live in New York and Boston). The California Dream meant an improved and more affordable family life: a small but stylish and airy house marked by a fluidity of indoor and outdoor space, such as the ubiquitous California bungalow and a lush [[backyard]]—the stage, that is, for quiet family life in a sunny climate. It meant very good jobs, excellent roads, plentiful facilities for outdoor recreation, and the schools and universities that were the best in the world by the 1940s. James M. Cain, an eastern writer who visited the Golden State, reported in 1933 that the archetypal Californian "addresses you in easy grammar, completes his sentences, shows familiarity with good manners, and in addition gives you a pleasant smile."<ref> Kevin Starr, ''Golden Dreams: California in an Age of Abundance, 1950-1963'' (2009) </ref>

==Comparative==
The American dream has always been a magnet for immigrants. Surveys show that Americans indeed have higher aspirations for themselves and their children. Thus three-quarters of Americans, compared with only one-third of Britons, West Germans, and Hungarians, and even fewer Dutch, agree that they have a good chance of improving their standard of living. Twice as many Americans as Canadians or Japanese think future generations of their nationality will live better than the present generation.<ref> Data cited by Hochschild, ''Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation'' (1995), ch. 1</ref>

====Notes====

<references/>
==Bibliography==
* Cullen, Jim. ''The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea That Shaped a Nation.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103185912 online edition]
* Hochschild, Jennifer L. ''Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation'' (1995) [http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5712.html excerpt]

==Also See==
* [[American exceptionalism]]

[[Category:United States]][[Category:Sociology]][[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Conservative dictionary]]

Alcoholism

2012-03-21T20:27:16Z

KingHanksley:

'''Alcoholism''' refers to [[addiction]] to [[Alcoholic Drinks|alcoholic beverages]]. The medical term used to refer to alcoholism is ''alcohol dependence''. A person can be diagnosed with alcohol dependence if at least three of these criteria occur during the same 12-month span: (a) tolerance (i.e., more alcohol is needed to produce the same effect); (b) alcohol withdrawal; (c) alcohol is used in larger amounts or over longer periods than intended (i.e., loss of control); (d) chronic desire or unsuccessful attempts to reduce drinking; (e) a great deal of time is spent obtaining or using alcohol; (f) other activities are reduced in order to use or recover from using alcohol; (g) drinking continues despite persistent problems that it either causes or makes worse<ref>American Psychiatric Association (1994). ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'', Fourth Edition. APA, Washington, D.C.</ref>.

==Causes==

* ... one note is found to be common to all alcoholics - emotional immaturity. Closely related to this is an observation that an unusually large number of alcoholics start out in life as an only child, as a younger child, as the only boy in a family of girls or the only girl in a family of boys. Many have records of childhood precocity and were what are known as spoiled children. [http://www.barefootsworld.net/aajalexpost1941.html]

==Health and other effects==
People with alcoholism have difficulty controlling their drinking, and thus tend to continue to drink despite problems that it causes. For example, being intoxicated or hung over can cause poor performance at school or work, leading to poor grades or loss of employment. Intoxication also impairs judgment, which may lead to legal problems when people engage in behaviors that they would think better of when sober (e.g., driving under the influence). Alcoholism can also be damaging to the family, leading to marital discord or divorce, and can contribute to [[domestic violence]].

Alcohol intoxication is commonly associated with crime; in cases where husbands murder their wives, about 66% of the cases involved drinking.<ref>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/spousfac.pr</ref>

Chronic, heavy drinking also causes a number of health problems, including cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, cancer, pancreatitis, sexual dysfunction, and alcohol-induced dementia.

==Alcohol withdrawal==
As noted above, alcohol withdrawal is a primary feature of alcoholism. Withdrawal can occur when a person who is normally a heavy drinker tries to quit or is unable to obtain alcohol. Alcohol withdrawal can lead directly to death. Heavy drinking reduces the brain's supply of [[GABA]]. Both alcohol and GABA limit the firing of [[synapse]]s in the brain. When neither is present in sufficient amounts, uncontrolled firing of synapses may occur, causing [[delirium tremens]] ("the DTs"). Symptoms of delirium tremens include hallucinations, convulsions, seizures, and heart failure. Delirium tremens can be controlled fairly easily with medical supervision, often with the use of [[benzodiazepine]]s.

==Treatment==
A number of methods to solve alcoholism are available for alcoholism, including faith in God, detoxification, [[psychotherapy]], self-help groups, and medications.

'''[[Faith]] in [[God]]''': The Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref> Studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling psychology for alcoholism receive hardly any benefit at all.<ref>http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/psychological-treatments-for-alcoholism.php</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11). For more information please see: [[Ineffectivness of counseling psychology]]

'''Detoxification''' is an abrupt cessation of drinking, often accompanied by medications such as [[benzodiazepine]]s to minimize withdrawal symptoms. Detoxification helps a person to cope with the physiological effects of chronic heavy drinking, but does not help with issues such as urges to drink or underlying reasons for alcohol dependence. Consequently, additional treatment is usually required for a successful outcome.

'''Psychotherapy''' for alcohol dependence can occur in individual or group format. This treatment helps an individual to be aware of underlying issues that may have led or contributed to alcoholism (e.g., depression). Psychotherapy also provides an individual with skills to help prevent relapse, such as avoiding situations in which not drinking would be difficult. As noted earlier, studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling psychology for alcoholism receive hardly any benefit at all.<ref>http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/psychological-treatments-for-alcoholism.php</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract</ref> For more information please see: [[Ineffectivness of counseling psychology]]

'''Self-help groups''' are commonly used by those suffering from alcoholism. The best known is [[Alcoholics Anonymous]], in which members acknowledge their problems with alcohol and provide support for other members.

'''Medications''' are often used to discourage alcohol use. ''Antabuse'' (disulfiram) interrupts the metabolization of alcohol, increasing the amount of acetaldehyde in the body and leading to substantial hangover symptoms shortly after drinking and discouraging those who have taken the medication from drinking. ''Naltrexone'' is a medication that binds to opioid receptors in the brain, decreasing alcohol cravings and promoting abstinence.

==See also==

*[[Alcohol abuse]]
*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Conservative dictionary]]

Action at a distance

2012-03-21T20:27:03Z

KingHanksley:

'''Action at a distance''' consists of affecting a distant body instantaneously. At the atomic level, this is known as "non-locality".

Examples of action at a distance in physics are:

* Newtonian gravity
* Electrostatics (before Maxwell's equations in the 1800s)
* Quantum entanglement within [[quantum mechanics]] (called "non-locality")

Other observed examples of action at a distance are:

* Action at a distance performed by Jesus, as described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].

Some scientists have long resisted the possibility of action at at distance (non-locality), and the [[theory of relativity]] assumes that information traveling instantaneously, or faster than the speed of light, is impossible.

Several theories have been developed as ways of denying '''action at a distance''' (non-locality). These include:

*gravitons
*string theory
*quantum field theory

[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:physics]]
[[Category:Conservative dictionary]]

Accountability

2012-03-21T20:26:07Z

KingHanksley:

In general, '''Accountability''' is the willingness to be held to agreed-upon standards. To be "held accountable" for one's judgments and actions is the mark of a [[professional]].

Established experts have historically had a tendency to use their mantle of expertise to "define" the truth, resisting efforts by outsiders to compare their notions or theories to reality (see [[History of science]]).

==Financial accountability==
In finance, '''Accountability''' is the degree to which it is ensured that an organization's monies are collected and disbursed properly, and that an [[audit trail]] is kept of all transactions. Under some [[budget]]ing processes and systems, every budgeted dollar is associated with a [[responsibility center]] and a designated manager accountable for the monitoring of expenditures and [[revenues]].

== See also ==

*[[Capital]]
*[[Capitalism]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:Budget terms]]
[[Category:Conservative dictionary]]

Category:Conservative Dictionary

2012-03-21T20:24:47Z

KingHanksley: Created page with "The Conservative Dictionary as a developing project to catalog and define words important to conservative principles, including words with an important Biblical or philosophical ..."

The Conservative Dictionary as a developing project to catalog and define words important to conservative principles, including words with an important Biblical or philosophical meaning that may not get enough attention in the [[liberal media]].

Please help to tag pages defining conservative words with the [[Category: Conservative Dictionary]] tag, to improve or sharpen definitions, or to add new words.

See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

Son of Man

2012-03-21T20:18:51Z

KingHanksley:

'''Son of Man''' is an enigmatic expression in the [[Gospel]]s for [[Jesus]], perhaps characterizing Him as the [[best of the public]] in the history of the world.

It is possible that its first use in reference to Jesus Christ is in the Book of Daniel, 7:13, in a prophecy of the [[Messiah]]
''I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.''
[[Category:Conservative Dictionary]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2012-03-11T20:50:56Z

KingHanksley: /* Football */

Mr Schlafly: this is such a great insight. I'm really impressed by some of the powerful conservative thinking on CP. Do you think most sports players are conservative because being successful at sport means being competitive? i.e trying to do your best instead of being a liberal wuss and complaining about other people doing well. Is it OK to add conservatives in UK sports like rugby, cricket and football? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 17:26, 26 November 2011 (EST)

:Competitive sports is a [[meritocracy]], which is a [[conservative]] value. Liberals prefer to "spread the wealth," which in sports would mean leveling the wins and losses.

:Please do add legitimate examples from around the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

::I agree this is a fascinating page; enough so that I joined to help edit! Many athletes praise God in postgame interviews, etc., across all sports. I wonder if there's a way to work that into this page? [[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 17:18, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Football ==

Hi Andy, For Gavin Peacock, you changed "football" to "soccer" but you've left the sport beside some other people's names (Tim Tebow and Kurt Warner - sorry, I've never heard of them) as plain "football". Does that mean American football? (like rugby league with padding). Shouldn't we change "football" for those guys to "American football" so as not to confuse people outside the USA? Otherwise, this is a great page - and I don't see any nit-picky socialists whining about any of their guys being top sports(wo)men! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:07, 28 November 2011 (EST)
: I disagree. It is pretty obvious that football is American football. What the Europeans call football is really called "Association football" or "soccer" for short. [[User:JamieM|JamieM]] 20:36, 28 November 2011 (EST)
:: It's not obvious to people outside the USA. And I think you'll find that football was invented in England. (Except I expect archaeologists will find it came from France, like cricket...)[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 16:36, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:::I am for getting rid of the non-American stars. At a minimum, a separate section. Plus, we do need to some conservative women on this page. Who follows women's sports in the Olympics, WNBA, NCAA Basketball, Fast Pitch Softball?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:25, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would expect that the American flag on the Conservapedia logo should give plenty of evidence that this is an American site. Anyone used to visiting sites outside their home country should be aware that "football" means different things in different countries (there's Australian, Canadian, and Gaelic - association football is by no means the only "football" outside the U.S.) and that in the USA it means American football. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:50, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Track and Field ==

Would Al Oerter qualify? He was the greatest discus thrower ever, one of only two athletes to win their event at four conservative Olympics. He was critical of the "drug culture" that had overtaken sports when he finally retired (at an age much older than when most athletes retire). He criticized steroid use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 30 November 2011 (EST)

== Sunday Sport ==

Can anyone clarify the actual significance of playing sport on a Sunday? Many people are included here for refusing to play on Sunday, and yet Lewis Hamilton is listed, when his sport take place exclusively on Sundays. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:26, 30 November 2011 (EST)
: Perhaps God has guided Ewen Murray to honour Him by observing the Sabbath, but Lewis Hamilton to glorify Him with outstanding achievements on the Sabbath. Questioning how the Lord has revealed himself to different people is awfully dangerous territory. Be humble enough to understand that He is working in different ways in different people with perfect wisdom. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:30, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:: You may well be right [[User:HollyS|HollyS]], but the problem is this page is not about sports stars who have been moved to act in particular ways by God; it's about conservative sports stars. It's hardly conservative to say that any behaviour is laudable as long as it's guided by God. Conservationism (thought I hate to oversimplify) is about sticking to some very strict ideas of what is right and what is wrong.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:38, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Maradona ==

I don't think Maradona should be on this list. First of all, the "Hand of God" Goal was actually a cheated goal. Maradona touched the ball with his hand and later called it the Hand of God... 
His personal life, according to the other Wiki, seems not so conservative as well. Maradona is divorced, cheated on his ex-wife, was addicted to cocaine and is nowadays very much befriended with Fidel Castro (according to TOW, he has a tattoo of Castro and Che Guevara) and highly critical of George W. Bush and the United States in general.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:20, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:We don't use the other wiki as a source of information, but I agree that Maradona is not conservative at all. Here is a video of Maradona talking at a Hugo Chavez speech. It is in Spanish, what Maradona says is: "Argentina is a worthy country. Lets throw Bush out!" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzYNxAb36cI] --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 12:33, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:: Thanks for the info cooncerning the use of TOW. I crosschecked it with the German version, but was otherwise just too busy to find reliable data. I knew though beforehand, from reliable sources, that the "Hand of God" Goal had nothing to do with God, but was at best Maradona joking or at worst being blasphemous. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:05, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Moe Berg ==

Was Moe Berg really a conservative? I could not find any information on his political views. Being a spy ''during'', not ''before'' WWII, seems insufficient to make him a conservative. I thought he might have been conservative because he turned down the Medal of Freedom which would have been awarded by Harry Truman ( a Democrat), but I couldn't find anything on his reasons to do that either. Additionaly, from what I've read he was not really a great, but rather mediocre sports star, although an extremely interesting one. In conclusion: I don't think he belongs on this list. Any differing opinions?--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments. Does anyone else have information about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

::I added him initially. One of our characteristics of a [[Conservative]] is the belief "A strong national defense." Keep in mind he was spying on Japan because there was a strong feeling that we might go to war with them; there were certainly tensions already, and being caught spying in such a context would have had serious consequences for Mr. Berg. Needless to say, no liberal would put his neck on the line like that! I'll go ahead and add him in a few days unless there are objections.[[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 14:58, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::: Well from what I've read, his spying on Japan consisted of him making a few videos from the roof of a hospital. I'm not quite sure if such an action would have lead to serious consequences. Seems more like normal tourist behaviour. I'm also not quite sure if he did the filming with the intention of spying, or if the OSS aproached him later asking for the film. But be that as it may. Another reason why I'm not too convinced about the national defense angle is that I've read that Mr. Berg mainly wanted to work for the CIA after the War, so he could travel on their expense, which was one of the reasons, why the CIA did not rehire him. As you can see from my comment above, I could not find any other signs that Mr. Berg was a conservative. He seems to have been rather apolitical. But if you want to readd him, be my guest. He was certainly a very interesting individual, that deserves to be admired.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 15:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:::: All good points. In doing more research myself he does seem like more of an oddball than a hero, so I'll look around for some more inspiring entries. Thanks![[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 13:20, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars

2012-03-11T20:50:09Z

KingHanksley: /* Football */

Mr Schlafly: this is such a great insight. I'm really impressed by some of the powerful conservative thinking on CP. Do you think most sports players are conservative because being successful at sport means being competitive? i.e trying to do your best instead of being a liberal wuss and complaining about other people doing well. Is it OK to add conservatives in UK sports like rugby, cricket and football? [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 17:26, 26 November 2011 (EST)

:Competitive sports is a [[meritocracy]], which is a [[conservative]] value. Liberals prefer to "spread the wealth," which in sports would mean leveling the wins and losses.

:Please do add legitimate examples from around the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 26 November 2011 (EST)

::I agree this is a fascinating page; enough so that I joined to help edit! Many athletes praise God in postgame interviews, etc., across all sports. I wonder if there's a way to work that into this page? [[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 17:18, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Football ==

Hi Andy, For Gavin Peacock, you changed "football" to "soccer" but you've left the sport beside some other people's names (Tim Tebow and Kurt Warner - sorry, I've never heard of them) as plain "football". Does that mean American football? (like rugby league with padding). Shouldn't we change "football" for those guys to "American football" so as not to confuse people outside the USA? Otherwise, this is a great page - and I don't see any nit-picky socialists whining about any of their guys being top sports(wo)men! [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 18:07, 28 November 2011 (EST)
: I disagree. It is pretty obvious that football is American football. What the Europeans call football is really called "Association football" or "soccer" for short. [[User:JamieM|JamieM]] 20:36, 28 November 2011 (EST)
:: It's not obvious to people outside the USA. And I think you'll find that football was invented in England. (Except I expect archaeologists will find it came from France, like cricket...)[[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 16:36, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:::I am for getting rid of the non-American stars. At a minimum, a separate section. Plus, we do need to some conservative women on this page. Who follows women's sports in the Olympics, WNBA, NCAA Basketball, Fast Pitch Softball?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:25, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would expect that the American flag on the Conservapedia logo should give plenty of evidence that this is an American site. Anyone used to visiting sites outside their home country should be aware that "football" in America means different things in different countries (there's Australian, Canadian, and Gaelic - association football is by no means the only "football" outside the U.S.) and that in the USA it means American football. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:50, 11 March 2012 (EDT)

== Track and Field ==

Would Al Oerter qualify? He was the greatest discus thrower ever, one of only two athletes to win their event at four conservative Olympics. He was critical of the "drug culture" that had overtaken sports when he finally retired (at an age much older than when most athletes retire). He criticized steroid use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 30 November 2011 (EST)

== Sunday Sport ==

Can anyone clarify the actual significance of playing sport on a Sunday? Many people are included here for refusing to play on Sunday, and yet Lewis Hamilton is listed, when his sport take place exclusively on Sundays. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:26, 30 November 2011 (EST)
: Perhaps God has guided Ewen Murray to honour Him by observing the Sabbath, but Lewis Hamilton to glorify Him with outstanding achievements on the Sabbath. Questioning how the Lord has revealed himself to different people is awfully dangerous territory. Be humble enough to understand that He is working in different ways in different people with perfect wisdom. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:30, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:: You may well be right [[User:HollyS|HollyS]], but the problem is this page is not about sports stars who have been moved to act in particular ways by God; it's about conservative sports stars. It's hardly conservative to say that any behaviour is laudable as long as it's guided by God. Conservationism (thought I hate to oversimplify) is about sticking to some very strict ideas of what is right and what is wrong.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:38, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Maradona ==

I don't think Maradona should be on this list. First of all, the "Hand of God" Goal was actually a cheated goal. Maradona touched the ball with his hand and later called it the Hand of God... 
His personal life, according to the other Wiki, seems not so conservative as well. Maradona is divorced, cheated on his ex-wife, was addicted to cocaine and is nowadays very much befriended with Fidel Castro (according to TOW, he has a tattoo of Castro and Che Guevara) and highly critical of George W. Bush and the United States in general.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:20, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:We don't use the other wiki as a source of information, but I agree that Maradona is not conservative at all. Here is a video of Maradona talking at a Hugo Chavez speech. It is in Spanish, what Maradona says is: "Argentina is a worthy country. Lets throw Bush out!" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzYNxAb36cI] --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 12:33, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:: Thanks for the info cooncerning the use of TOW. I crosschecked it with the German version, but was otherwise just too busy to find reliable data. I knew though beforehand, from reliable sources, that the "Hand of God" Goal had nothing to do with God, but was at best Maradona joking or at worst being blasphemous. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:05, 12 December 2011 (EST)

== Moe Berg ==

Was Moe Berg really a conservative? I could not find any information on his political views. Being a spy ''during'', not ''before'' WWII, seems insufficient to make him a conservative. I thought he might have been conservative because he turned down the Medal of Freedom which would have been awarded by Harry Truman ( a Democrat), but I couldn't find anything on his reasons to do that either. Additionaly, from what I've read he was not really a great, but rather mediocre sports star, although an extremely interesting one. In conclusion: I don't think he belongs on this list. Any differing opinions?--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 12:28, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments. Does anyone else have information about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

::I added him initially. One of our characteristics of a [[Conservative]] is the belief "A strong national defense." Keep in mind he was spying on Japan because there was a strong feeling that we might go to war with them; there were certainly tensions already, and being caught spying in such a context would have had serious consequences for Mr. Berg. Needless to say, no liberal would put his neck on the line like that! I'll go ahead and add him in a few days unless there are objections.[[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 14:58, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::: Well from what I've read, his spying on Japan consisted of him making a few videos from the roof of a hospital. I'm not quite sure if such an action would have lead to serious consequences. Seems more like normal tourist behaviour. I'm also not quite sure if he did the filming with the intention of spying, or if the OSS aproached him later asking for the film. But be that as it may. Another reason why I'm not too convinced about the national defense angle is that I've read that Mr. Berg mainly wanted to work for the CIA after the War, so he could travel on their expense, which was one of the reasons, why the CIA did not rehire him. As you can see from my comment above, I could not find any other signs that Mr. Berg was a conservative. He seems to have been rather apolitical. But if you want to readd him, be my guest. He was certainly a very interesting individual, that deserves to be admired.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 15:12, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:::: All good points. In doing more research myself he does seem like more of an oddball than a hero, so I'll look around for some more inspiring entries. Thanks![[User:LeRoyB|LeRoyB]] 13:20, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Jeremy Lin

2012-02-16T05:53:12Z

KingHanksley: Created page with "==Updates== I expanded the article but I sometimes have loads of work and no time to edit so someone else will need to take up the banner. ~~~~"

==Updates==
I expanded the article but I sometimes have loads of work and no time to edit so someone else will need to take up the banner. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Jeremy Lin

2012-02-16T05:46:38Z

KingHanksley:

'''Jeremy Lin''' is a starting point guard for the New York Knicks, a professional basketball team in the [[NBA]]. An [[evangelical]] [[Christian]] and [[Taiwanese-American]], Lin was repeatedly overlooked by college and pro teams, but excelled when he finally had a chance to start and in a matter of days became one of the most popular players in the NBA.[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/08/SP5G1N509O.DTL]

Growing up in Palo Alto, Lin excelled at basketball (as well as academics) in high school, but was not offered an athletic scholarship for college and wound up attending Harvard. After being again passed up by the NBA draft, and after being signed and cut by both the Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets, Lin ended up on the New York Knicks.

On February 4, 2012, Lin came off the bench [http://www.nba.com/games/20120204/NJNNYK/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore] but ended up playing nearly 36 minutes (of a 48 minute game) and leading the Knicks to victory, beginning what is now a seven game winning streak for the then 8-17 squad. The next day he made his first career start, and led his team in scoring and assists as they won again despite the loss of star player [[Carmelo Anthony]] to injury. Lin has continued to excel and his team has continued to win, while his team has at times been without both Anthony and [[Amare Stoudemire]], their other highly paid star player.

Widely acknowledged to be a hard working player, Lin credited his Christian faith with his attitude, telling Patheos reporter Timothy Dalrymple

"''Slowly, God revealed more to me. I started learning how to trust in Him, not to focus so much on whether I win or lose but to have faith that God has a perfect plan. For me to put more of an emphasis on my attitude and the way that I play, rather than my stats or whether we win a championship. I learned more about a godly work ethic and a godly attitude, in terms of being humble, putting others above yourself, being respectful to refs and opponents. There are really so many ways you can apply your faith to basketball.''"[http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Faith-and-Fate-of-Jeremy-Lin?offset=1&max=1]

[[Category:basketball]]

Jeremy Lin

2012-02-16T05:45:42Z

KingHanksley:

'''Jeremy Lin''' is a starting point guard for the New York Knicks, a professional basketball team in the [[NBA]]. An [[evangelical]] [[Christian]] and [[Taiwanese-American]], Lin was repeatedly overlooked by college and pro teams, but excelled when he finally had a chance to start and in a matter of days became one of the most popular players in the NBA.[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/08/SP5G1N509O.DTL]

Growing up in Palo Alto, Lin excelled at basketball (as well as academics) in high school, but was not offered an athletic scholarship for college and wound up attending Harvard. After being again passed up by the NBA draft, and after being signed and cut by both the Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets, ended up on the New York Knicks.

On February 4, 2012, Lin came off the bench [http://www.nba.com/games/20120204/NJNNYK/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore] but ended up playing nearly 36 minutes (of a 48 minute game) and leading the Knicks to victory, beginning what is now a seven game winning streak for the then 8-17 squad. The next day he made his first career start, and led his team in scoring and assists as they won again despite the loss of star player [[Carmelo Anthony]] to injury. Lin has continued to excel and his team has continued to win, while his team has at times been without both Anthony and [[Amare Stoudemire]], their other highly paid star player.

Widely acknowledged to be a hard working player, Lin credited his Christian faith with his attitude, telling Patheos reporter Timothy Dalrymple

"''Slowly, God revealed more to me. I started learning how to trust in Him, not to focus so much on whether I win or lose but to have faith that God has a perfect plan. For me to put more of an emphasis on my attitude and the way that I play, rather than my stats or whether we win a championship. I learned more about a godly work ethic and a godly attitude, in terms of being humble, putting others above yourself, being respectful to refs and opponents. There are really so many ways you can apply your faith to basketball.''"[http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Faith-and-Fate-of-Jeremy-Lin?offset=1&max=1]

[[Category:basketball]]

Jeremy Lin

2012-02-16T05:45:25Z

KingHanksley:

'''Jeremy Lin''' is a starting point guard for the New York Knicks, a professional basketball team in the [[NBA]]. An [[evangelical]] [[Christian]] and [[Taiwanese-American]], Lin was repeatedly overlooked by college and pro teams, but excelled when he finally had a chance to start and in a matter of days became one of the most popular players in the NBA.[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/08/SP5G1N509O.DTL]

Growing up in Palo Alto, Lin excelled at basketball (as well as academics) in high school, but was not offered an athletic scholarship for college and wound up attending Harvard. After being again passed up by the NBA draft, and after being signed and cut by both the Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets, ended up on the New York Knicks.

On February 4, 2012, Lin came off the bench [http://www.nba.com/games/20120204/NJNNYK/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore] but ended up playing nearly 36 minutes (of a 48 minute game) and leading the Knicks to victory, beginning what is now a seven game winning streak for the then 8-17 squad. The next day he made his first career start, and led his team in scoring and assists as they won again despite the loss of star player [[Carmelo Anthony]] to injury. Lin has continued to excel and his team has continued to win, while his team has at times been without both Anthony and [[Amare Stoudemire]], their other highly paid star player.

Widely acknowledged to be a hard working player, Lin credited his Christian faith with his attitude, telling Patheos reporter Timothy Dalrymple

"''Slowly, God revealed more to me. I started learning how to trust in Him, not to focus so much on whether I win or lose but to have faith that God has a perfect plan. For me to put more of an emphasis on my attitude and the way that I play, rather than my stats or whether we win a championship. I learned more about a godly work ethic and a godly attitude, in terms of being humble, putting others above yourself, being respectful to refs and opponents. There are really so many ways you can apply your faith to basketball.''"[http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Faith-and-Fate-of-Jeremy-Lin?offset=1&max=1]

[[Category:basketball]]<ref>addref</ref>

Jeremy Lin

2012-02-16T05:40:58Z

KingHanksley:

'''Jeremy Lin''' is a starting point guard for the New York Knicks, a professional basketball team in the [[NBA]]. An [[evangelical]] [[Christian]] and [[Taiwanese-American]], Lin was repeatedly overlooked by college and pro teams, but excelled when he finally had a chance to start and in a matter of days became one of the most popular players in the NBA.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/08/SP5G1N509O.DTL</ref>

Growing up in Palo Alto, Lin excelled at basketball (as well as academics) in high school, but was not offered an athletic scholarship for college and wound up attending Harvard. After being again passed up by the NBA draft, and after being signed and cut by both the Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets, ended up on the New York Knicks.

On February 4, 2012, Lin came off the bench <ref>http://www.nba.com/games/20120204/NJNNYK/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore</ref> but ended up playing nearly 36 minutes (of a 48 minute game) and leading the Knicks to victory, beginning what is now a seven game winning streak for the then 8-17 squad. The next day he made his first career start, and led his team in scoring and assists as they won again despite the loss of star player [[Carmelo Anthony]] to injury. Lin has continued to excel and his team has continued to win, while his team has at times been without both Anthony and [[Amare Stoudemire]], their other highly paid star player.

Widely acknowledged to be a hard working player, Lin credited his Christian faith with his attitude, telling Patheos reporter Timothy Dalrymple

"''Slowly, God revealed more to me. I started learning how to trust in Him, not to focus so much on whether I win or lose but to have faith that God has a perfect plan. For me to put more of an emphasis on my attitude and the way that I play, rather than my stats or whether we win a championship. I learned more about a godly work ethic and a godly attitude, in terms of being humble, putting others above yourself, being respectful to refs and opponents. There are really so many ways you can apply your faith to basketball.''"<ref>http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Faith-and-Fate-of-Jeremy-Lin?offset=1&max=1</ref>

[[Category:basketball]]

Tim Tebow

2012-01-18T18:40:24Z

KingHanksley:

[[File:Tim Tebow.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow''' (born August 14, 1987) is an [[American]] [[football]] player who first gained fame while playing for the [[University of Florida]] Gators. He was the first sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]] and led the Gators to two [[BCS]] Championships during his four years playing for UF in Gainesville.

He was selected by the [[Denver Broncos]] as the 25th pick of the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. In 2011, with the team in last place, the Broncos decided to start Tebow as quarterback. Tebow had an impressive seven-game winning streak, and took the Broncos to the division championship and a home-game appearance in the playoffs. He led them to an upset win over the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (headed by Hollywood-values quarterback [[Ben Roethlisberger]]) with 316 passing yards, confounding his critics. The Broncos were then eliminated from the playoffs when they lost against the [[New England Patriots]], 45-10, with Tebow completing only 9 of 26 pass attempts for a gain of 136 yards, 13 yards rushing, and 5 sacks.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2012/01/15/patriots_simply_unstoppable_against_broncos/ Patriots Pounce Broncos] Shaughnessy, Dan, bostonglobe.com, January 15, 2012, retrieved January 15, 2012</ref>

'''''Tebow is one of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] and was a runner-up for [[Conservative of the Year 2011]]'''''.

==Personal life==
Tebow was [[homeschooled]] until college. He is an outspoken [[pro-lifer]], and his mother had been told to have an [[abortion]] rather than to give birth to him. Tebow appeared in a pro-life television ad that aired during the 2010 [[Super Bowl]], risking retaliation against his career by [[pro-aborts]] and the [[liberal media]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0127/Tim-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-an-astonishingly-bold-stand</ref>

Tebow gives frequent interviews to the liberal media and often leaves them speechless. He answered a highly personal question at a press conference about his sex life by revealing that he practices [[abstinence]]:<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090724&sportCat=ncf</ref>
{{cquote|I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question. ... I was ready for that question, but I don't think ya'll were.}}

Tebow volunteers on mission trips, one of which in the summer of 2008 to the [[Philippines]] was chronicled in an issue of the ''ESPN Magazine''.

His faith in [[Christ]] is a well-known fact inside and outside the sports world.

==Tebowing==
Tebowing is the act of kneeling on one knee, resting your head on your fist and giving thanks. It is named for Tebow's fashion of public prayer, although some Christian critics have denounced such open practice as this, citing Matthew 6:6.
''<blockquote>
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
</blockquote>''
However, Tebow's act can be considered simply an expression of faith and thanks, rather than a prayer. That Tebow bows to God on the field does not mean that he does not also pray to him in private.

== References ==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tebow, Tim}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category: Pro-life]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Talk:Conservative parables

2012-01-16T01:42:10Z

KingHanksley: /* Chicken, Pitcher and Crow */ new section

Could there be a section for the moral of the parable? I don't understand it.--[[User:TrTran|TrTran]] 23:09, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Uhhhhh this doesnt really make any sense. How is this a conservative-centric story? Hmmmmmm, did the smoker have breast cancer?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:12, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:If he'd had a gun then he wouldn't have needed the 10¢. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 08:30, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Parable #3==
Andrew, does this relate to Jeanne Assam? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:55, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
:I only ask because, with a linked news ref, it does make a great story, especially Assam's quote "“I give credit to G-d. G-d was with me." [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:57, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, you're sharp! The quote would make a great addition!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:::It is one of those events that stays in the memory! Spine tingling, even for Believers. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Right, it was spine tingling to write that account here! I see much potential for writing and reading [[conservative parables]]. I wonder what will be next!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==#1==
I suppose the conservative insight of this story is never give money to those in need. (Indeed judging from the republicans, this does seem to be the case.) BTW, great reference "This actually happened", I'm tempted to add a fact citation to it.

How are any of these "Conservative" parables? (well the last one...)'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:25, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:I think the links with the parable I added justify it very well; paleos (for I am one) are very concerned with the small, human, familiar and social dimensions and less with the chiselled-in-stone politics that some politicians and all Liberals insist we adhere to. You're a nice Jewish young man, you can see the small-c conservatism I tried to put across, surely? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::It's the first one that got me worked up, I'm at the end of my 6th day of my most recent quitting, and I know more then any non-smoker how bad it is to fiend for a smoke, I don't see the "human" dimension of the first story, I'm sorry. If it was me I'd probably sit buy him the pack of smokes, take him out for coffee and share the pack with him...
::By "Paleo", do you mean a [[Ron Paul]]-esque conservative?

::: If you gave him a dime, then you'd obviously be hurting him. "Sharing" his hurtful experience wouldn't undo the harm.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::: By the way, [[conservative values]] are superb in helping one conquer addictions (to which all of us are vulnerable). [[Conservatives]] include many ex-smokers who were able to defeat that difficult addiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I guess the point of the story is a "free market" type of lesson. All he had to do was go to another store where tobacco was sold at a lower price. Maybe he'd even find some more change on the street. Thats the only point I can find.

:::: No, he would have gone to the cheapest place first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Storm ==

Doesn't this prove that prayer doesn't work? That the Protestant ship could've been a crew of atheists who also immediately jumped into action, and would've saved themselves, too?

:It proves that [[God]] helps those who help themselves. [[User:HStrobell|HStrobell]] 11:36, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::Your nonsense has been removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal parables==
Is it okay if I make this page? Liberal values, while not generally embraced by those here, might still have something to offer if you have an open mind.--[[User:ThomasE|ThomasE]] 18:16, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

: OK, let's see what have you have in mind. We have an open mind here and welcome the truth. But misleading, made-up stuff, like drug addicts who succeed, won't last, of course.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::Drug addicts never succeed Andy? I can think of [[Paul Erdos|at least one]]. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:00, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for illustrating my point, DanielB. An entry that claims that [[Paul Erdos]] was a drug addict will likely result in deletion of the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::::He did take large quantities of drugs. What else would you call him? Acutally I would call him a user rather than an addict he did give up cold turkey for a month on a bet. He went back on them claiming it clouded his thinking not taking them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

What is good for the goose aint good for the gander, eh Aschlalfy. Besides, liberals have no morals hence any [[Liberal Parable]] would only show that following [[Liberal Values]] cause depression, drug addiction and the like.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:46, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Double Standard?==--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Hardly a double standard. There are stories in the paper or whatever ''all the time'' about drug dealers commiting crimes like armed robbery but how often is a churchgoer likely to do the same? Hence when it happens it would definatly be headline news. That section should be removed pronto.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I'll second this - when habitual criminals commit another crime, even a serious one, it's not exactly remarkable, but when a supposedly upstanding member of the church commits a crime, that's newsworthy. That's why anti-homosexual pastor Ted Haggard's outing and more recently, conservative congressman Vito Fosella's DUI arrest and admission of fatherng a love-child are newsworthy - because the behavior is so out of line with their professed values. As a "conservative parable" this one really needs to be reconsidered. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

How is this gem a "parable". What's the moral of the story? Also, who has the double standard? From the way I see it, it's the churchgoer. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 07:23, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

The three comments above illustrate that the double standard is defended and even supported by [[liberal]] editors here. The above comments reinforce the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:I have a serious, respectful question - what is the truth, religious principle, or moral lesson that is being presented through this story? Is it a commentary that all people should be held to the same standard of behavior, regardless of their role in society, and all lapses and misdeeds be regarded equally? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

What Double Standard? News begins with the word '''NEW''', when junkies rob a store for a fix, it's (unfortunately) nothing new. The only one with the double standard was the churchgoer. Please see [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a "short allegorical story designed to '''illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson'''." What is the point of this parable? That the media sensationalizes stories? (Another thing that isn't news...)
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==$40==
Where does one begin! By this parable I presume the guy didnt work at all during the period of his life that this reports? On would think he did and find the $40 that following week! Also, why didnt he use a wallet? This is a silly one, it should be removed (like the double standard
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:14, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, he lost the $40 and it doesn't really matter how he lost it. We've all lost money, of course. I doubt there is any adult who hasn't. The point is obviously that money is nothing more than time, and that time is better spent in self-help than in self-worry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Which I exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:39, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your statement makes no sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Which is exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: A little better, but still incomprehensible. [[Conservative values]] are freely available to all, for the benefit of them, their families, friends and students. Spread the value to others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Not a Math Error==

Income Tax: 10%

Amount wanted after tax: $40

Amount needed to be earned: 10/9 * $40 = $44.44 (.44444444444...)

''Check: 10% of $44.44 = $4.44, $44.44 - $4.44 = $40''

Time needed to earn $44.44 = $44.44 / $8 = 5.6 hours

Not an error [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:13, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:''based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes).''

You seem to have overlooked the word "about". And given your username's implied claim to have some statistics expertise, I've blocked your account. When you come back, I expect an apology and a retraction.

Then you can construct a better example based on an actual example of gross pay and taxes. (You might, for example, ask the manager of your local McDonald's what percent taxes are withheld for his part-time workers.)

But worst of all, you have argued about the details of the example in a way that draws attention away from the point of it. This does not help the project. It's like the response to [[Expelled]] wherein a write-in campaign complained about the use of an [[Imagine]] sample - not out of any financial concern for a poor suffering widow, but because they wanted to undermine the ability of the producers to articulate their point.

Next time you undermine the project, you are out. Permanently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:01, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

::Seems like a serious overreaction to a dispute over math. StatsMsn wasn't being disrespectful, and the number being 6 or 5.6 doesn't change the ''point'' of the story in any significant way. Can you cut the guy a break and unblock him since he was being constructive? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

::: When someone insists on "correcting" someone else, as in StatsMsn's case, then he should have a good justification. Otherwise, he's just harming the site, and the site is better off by blocking him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see the error in his math, just throwing that out there.

==Fasting woman==
Wouldn't the killer have been stopped in advance by not having easy access to a gun to begin with? This seems like a logical flaw to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:It's only a 'logical flaw' to anyone who is 100% unfamiliar with the real world. In the real world law-abiding people obey the law, but - and let's pay attention here - CRIMINALS DON'T. That's why it is important that a legal system ''should'' accord proper rights of self defence to decent people. And fortunate for those church-goers that the legal system of the USA ''does'', despite the aims of [[Liberal]] do-gooders to undermine democratic freedoms. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::I'd discuss this further if you weren't a clear parody account.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'll treat that remark with the contempt it deserves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Tax edit on Welfare parable ==

Daniel's tax edit on the Welfare parable was incorrect, because a charitable donation is tax-deductible and (if done properly) the $5 earned need not be adjusted if all is donated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If a homeless person came to your house looking for work, how many people would welcome him onto your property? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 22:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: How would the owner know that he is homeless? Even if was known to be homeless, many would welcome an offer to do the work described in the parable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree. If some random person came up to your front door and said "I'd like to clean up the dog poop in your yard for $5", but looked like they'd been living on the streets for years, I can almost guarantee that a majority of people would turn the potential worker away. An interesting anecdote, when I was working at a seminar for staff working for the AWANA program (google it if you don't know what it is, but basically it is a program where children memorize bible verses and learn about the bible), the director dressed up like a homeless person during lunch and wandered around the entrances to the church where the seminar was being held. Not one person talked to him or offered him anything to eat from the nearly unlimited food supplies the caterers brought. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::I removed this parable because I'm fairly certain it's actually a satire of Republican values (oversimplified scenario, forcing the less-fortunate into demeaning labor that nobody else wants to do in exchange for a pittance...)[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, looks like I've been reverted. I didn't expect anyone to listen anyway.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I listened, but your argument is absurd. The parable is powerful and persuasive, and that may be the real reason you don't like it. Regardless, let the readers decide for themselves rather than censoring it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:33, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: I find it ''very'' hard to consider a parable about a little girl discussing dog poop to be persuasive.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Parables are often set forth in, shall we say, in "down to earth" terms. I doubt you can improve this parable, but constructive suggestions or edits are always welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'd suggest that these stories not be in the first person, from a style point. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::While it's right to encourage people to earn things instead of being given them, the metaphor of the homeless man in this story is uncomfortable. Many people are homeless because they have mental problems that keep them from functioning in jobs and society overall, not because they just don't want to work. The direction of this story also seems to look down on the homeless in terms of the work that's suitable for them. If the girl was asked to do something clean and fun to earn money, like sell lemonade, would she be as likely to have suggested the homeless man do it instead? By choosing something distasteful to push the girl into not wanting to do it herself, it seems like she missed the true point of self-enablement, and made her suggestion for selfish reasons.

:::::::Like I said, self-enablement is a virtue, so a better story would be about the establishment of Habitat for Humanity. I've volunteered for them in NJ often because I know exactly where my time and energy is going, and the beneficiaries of the homes are working just as hard as I am to earn them, not receive them.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Essay? ==

Shouldn't this be moved to [[Essay:Conservative parables]]? I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==The Drowning Man==

No personal offense to the author, but I'd suggest removing this story completely because it doesn't convey anything positive despite the attempt at teaching about helping people to help themselves. When a person is drowning it's because they can't swim or tread water, and the reactions in the story are just awful. Can you imagine a lifeguard throwing a short line and expecting the victim to close the gap, or throwing a line and letting it go? All this story does is make the conservative look unbelievably callous and the liberal unbelievably stupid, so if the intention is to make a point in a meaningful, believable way then this needs a fresh start.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Take it out of you wish, but the point of a parable is that it uses a story to demonstrate a lesson, not necessarily a story that could really happen. Jesus talked about people attempting to remove specks of dust from other's eyes wile walking about with logs in their own eyes. He didn't mean that literally. The point of this parable was that liberals tend to throw money (the rope) at problems, even if money won't solve anything; and that coservatives often expect people to help themselves, even when they're not entirely able. For what it's worth, a minister told me this parable. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 16:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::(delayed by edit clash) : What it conveys is this: the conservative only had a limited amount of rope but threw it anyway. The drowning man might not havebeen able to swim to shore but might under his own steam have been able to swim to the rope and be saved. Thus he is helped to save himselfoose: liberals throw money at issues, with no oversight of how wisely it is spent or or how effective it is. Thus, despite huge resources being throown at a problem - resources taken in tax from the hard-working - nothing is achieved. It is simple and easy to understand, very much to the point, and a telling metaphor for rival political and social attitudes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::It just says he threw 50 feet of rope, not that he only had fifty feet of rope. Aside from that, you're reading way too far into a light-hearted story in an attempt to spin it to make the Republicans look like a guild of Jesii. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Do you think this is a shaggy dog story, then? It's a parable, it is there to make a point.[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Really? Care to explain the point of Andy not helping a fellow citizen out by giving him a dime? Or the point of any of the other parables? The last two added are jokes, and nothing more. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::''not helping a fellow citizen out by giving him a dime?'' It is quite obvious that the point is to encourage self-reliance. And on the same basis I decline to write a step-by-step guide to understanding parables for you. Read, then think. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I don't see it as my place to remove your parable, CraigC. I think of this page more like a collection of essays than a fact-based article, so editing should be left up to the original poster after considering the feedback here. Based on the other comments here, it just seems that this is more like a joke than a parable, with the goal being to get a laugh at the liberal's ineptness instead of gaining any true insight. Also, I find your explanation of the parable ironic when reading articles about billions in U.S. taxpayer funds being thrown at Iraqi reconstruction without audits or controls, and then vanishing without explanation. The conservatives who started this war need to walk the walk when it comes to "values" like this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Ah, the point of the story was to laugh at people on both sides of the aisle. Neither conservative nor liberal are stainless saint or dastardly sinner. I leave it to the will of the majority whether this one stays.[[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It's good humor, Craig. I learned from it even though it pokes fun of conservatives too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::So is this page open to conservative jokes as well as conservative parables? Sounds like a new category is needed instead. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I really liked this one; it made a lot of sense! The only problem is that the liberal lets go of the 200-foot rope at both ends, so the rope extends only 100 feet into the water. This seems like a reasonable amount after the conservative says "I provide 50, you provide 50" (paraphrase). My point is--well...maybe I'm not sure what my point is...maybe the liberal should only be holding onto one of the ends when he lets go?--[[User:JParker|JParker]] 18:02, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== This parable actually happened ==

I'm not keen on the sentence 'This parable actually happened', which a few of the parables end with. It has impact the first time, but loses its effect with repetition. Also, surely the point of a parable is that it is equally instructive whether it really happened or not. [[Jesus]] did not say that any of His parables had actually happened, but they are no less telling for it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:53, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

: You raise an interesting point, and I'm sorry it took me over a year to respond to it! I'm not sure how Jesus described many of his parables. When He started the [[Prodigal Son]] with words to the effect, "A man had two sons ...," we don't know whether the story was factual or not. Perhaps it was factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Conservatives and 911 Parable ==

If they didnt discuss their decisions to travel, how can anyone possibly know that they all decided to travel based on logic and faith?

: Is there any other plausible explanation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== The Flop ==

I'm not sure how this is a conservative parable. Even the most hardened conservative can agree that innovation is not an exclusively conservative realm; while it was foolish of Fosbury's competitors to mock him and his approach, it fail to see how his perseverance was "conservative". For example, Apple Computers, a liberal company, faced much criticism in its early days (and even now), but has continued to innovate in its field. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:54, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

:Apple is not particularly liberal and, regardless, innovation is a conservative concept. Liberals prefer government control, which the opposite of innovation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting, Andy. I've started [[Best conservative innovations a page on conservative innovations]] where we can catalog these sorts of developments. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:00, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

:::You said you started a new page, but I clicked on it and there's nothing there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:52, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Accurate link: [[Best conservative innovations]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:56, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
:::: The [[Apple Inc.]] page opens with the line "Apple Inc. is a liberal corporation based out of Cupertino, California" by the way. [[User:RicardD|RicardD]] 12:10, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== The idea that innovation is a conservative trait is patently false ==

There are loads of examples of innovators who exhibited liberal traits. Thomas Edison, Warren Buffet, and Steve Wozniak to name a few. Hell, if even half the people on wikipedia's list of atheist scientists and technological innovators is correct, than this idea is certifiably false. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 22:07, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it up with Aschalfly. He put it in there. That makes it true. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:10, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I see above that liberalism is all about government control, despite the fact that anarchy and rebellion from authority are also liberal traits. I also see through links that abolitionism was a conservative movement, despite the fact that many of the supporters of the movement were socialists (such as Horace Greely) or exhibited other liberal traits (Thaddeus Stevens voted for public schools and other social programs). This is rather disturbing, are we rewriting the history books to help conservatism? Surely every major milestone and achievement can't be laid at conservatism's doorstep? I mean, c'mon, it's a great ideology, but it's made up of people and therefore cannot be perfect as people themselves aren't perfect. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 22:19, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Welcome to Conservapedia! [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:21, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Originality is inherently conservative, while liberals tend to copy ... and mock. Jesus was an original; his detractors mocked Him. Fosbury was an original; his detractors mocked him. Edison was conservative, and I can't think of anything Buffett did that was truly original. The US Constitution was original and innovative. Etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

== Chicken, Pitcher and Crow ==

I added this one, a retelling of Aesop's "The Pitcher and the Crow" with the addition of a liberal chicken who does nothing but complain to contrast with the innovative and hardworking crow. I hope this fits along with others, and that it is o.k. to retell a classic story. Aesop's work is in the public domain and this version is my own work. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 20:42, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Conservative parables

2012-01-16T01:38:22Z

KingHanksley:

'''Conservative parables''' are stories that illustrate a [[conservative]] insight. The stories are typically based on real events.

== The Prodigal Son Has Children ==

A good man had two sons. One of them was defiant and insisted on ignoring and disobeying his father, leaving him, and then squandering his money on immoral living in a distant land. He refused to return to his father to ask forgiveness.

Eventually the defiant son had children of his own. Living in squalor, his own suffering children would ask him about their grandfather. One day his own children asked why they never visit Grandpa.

For the first time the man looked at himself objectively, and realized how illogical and wrong it was for him to abandon his own father. He finally returned to home to ask for forgiveness, and brought his children with him.

== The Broken Bicycle ==

One morning in [[New York City]] a crowd of pedestrians waited for the streetlight to change so that they could cross the intersection. The sidewalk corner was crowded with people, as it often is, and one pedestrian stepped slightly into the street in anticipation of crossing it. But at that moment a messenger on a bicycle was moving quickly through the intersection, and was thrown off balance by hitting the pedestrian's foot. The bicycle crashed, destroying it beyond repair.

The crowd gasped in horror, but the bicyclist was unharmed. He did, however, lose the value of the bicycle. One bystander, observing that the fault was due to the pedestrian, wanted to donate so that the bicyclist could buy a replacement. But the bystander could not afford to give him much money. So instead the bystander took out a $20 bill and handed it to the bicyclist in front the crowd.

Others then followed that example and made donations of their own to the bicyclist. Before long he had enough to buy a replacement for his bicycle, and was back at work by the afternoon.

== The Desperate Smoker==
[[Image:Ashtray.jpg|thumb|150px|Is charity really charity if it just goes up in [[cigarette|smoke]]?]]
A smoker was in a drug store to purchase a pack of [[cigarette]]s. Short on cash, he emptied all his pockets in order to scrounge up with every last penny he had. The cashier counted all the change and but found it was ten cents short of the total required for the cheapest pack of cigarettes.

The smoker desperately turned to the man standing behind him and asked him for a dime. The bystander clearly had a spare dime.

Should the bystander give the smoker a dime so he can purchase the pack of cigarettes?

The bystander, who is generous by nature, did something more difficult for him: he denied the request and instead urged the smoker to "kick the habit."

The smoker then gathered all his change and left the store.

== The Fasting Woman ==
A woman had been fasting for several days and was quite weak. It was Sunday morning, and she wondered whether she had enough strength to attend church. It would have been easy to justify not going, as she had already shown her love and devotion to God that week. But she decided to attend the services anyway. Without eating any breakfast, she prepared herself for the late morning service. She got dressed, gathered her purse and belongings, and drove off to the church.

The church was filled for the late-morning service, with many hundreds of worshipers. The woman sat near the back and watched the pews fill up with members of the community, young and old. The service was about to begin. The woman then heard an unusual commotion outside, including several loud noises and shouts. She turned around several times to look at the door to the church. Her intuition told her something was wrong.

Suddenly, a large man burst through the door and began shooting at the hundreds of worshipers, children and all. The woman mustered all her strength and pulled out her gun from her bag. She then shot the intruder. Stunned, and expecting to die from her shot, the intruder killed himself. The worshipers in the church were all saved. Afterwards, the woman said that she had been "praying to God that he direct me" in what to do in life.<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html ''God Guided Me And Protected Me.''] 7 News: The Denver Channel</ref>

== The Troubled Pregnancy ==

A pregnant woman was doing missionary work in the Philippines. Due to contaminated drinking water in an impoverished area, the woman contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant. This required that she take strong medications in order to recover.

The woman's doctor told her that the medication inevitably caused irreversible damage to the developing unborn child in her womb. The doctor advised the woman to have an [[abortion]]. The doctor told the woman that she would be burdened with a disabled child and it would be better to get rid of the unborn child now through [[abortion]].

The woman refused to have the [[abortion]] and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy, whom she named Timothy.

Twenty years later, [[Tim Tebow]] was recognized as the best college football player in the [[United States]] by winning the [[Heisman Trophy]], the first to win that prestigious award as only a sophomore.<ref>This parable is based on the birth and life of Tim Tebow. [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07121108.html]</ref>

== The Lost $40 ==

One day a teenager received $40 from his father. The teenager then had to drive somewhere, and he put the $40 on the seat of his car. After going in and out of the car several times, and driving with the windows open, the $40 was gone. He searched and searched for it, but could not find it anywhere.

He then spent dozens of hours agonizing over the lost $40, obsessed with having lost it. It bothered him for weeks, even months. He still remembered it years later.

One day he realized that, based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes). If he had simply worked rather than worry, he would have quickly "found" the $40 and accomplished something in the process.

== The Flop ==

A skinny young man having limited athletic ability had a determination to do his very best and win. He picked the high jump event, but could only clear about 5' 3", nowhere near what was needed to win any competitions. But he worked tirelessly, trying all known techniques for jumping over a bar. Still, he could not improve to the point where he could win.

Yet he did not give up, and harnessed his competitive spirit to invent a revolutionary style of jumping back-first over the bar. Though lacking the athletic gifts of his competitors, the young man improved his jumping ability by a foot and more. He began to win.

His peculiar style attracted mockery and name-calling, as people derided his technique as the "flop". But that did not faze him, and he continued to jump in the direction opposite to all his competitors. Despite winning the national college high jump event, experts still considered his success to be a fluke and his approach to be a joke.

When it came time for the [[Olympics]], no one considered the young man to have a chance, and his more athletic competitors were favorites to win the high jump event. The whole world was riveted to the television screen as the young man flawlessly cleared every height as the bar was raised again and again. When the bar was finally raised to an Olympic record height of 7' 4 1/4", only the young man and his "flop" were able to jump over it. He had won the gold medal.

Virtually immediately everyone else, including those who had mercilessly mocked him, began praising and imitating his style. To this day it is known as the "[[Fosbury Flop]]."<ref>http://www.usatf.org/halloffame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=57</ref>

== The Difficult Science Problem ==

Physics 401 was the most difficult course in the entire college, having problem sets that would take many hours to complete each week. The students often worked on the homework together, as allowed and even encouraged by the professor. Students were also able to consult books and online resources in solving problems.

As the course progressed, the problems became increasingly difficult and complex. Some students were better than others at solving the problems. Reputations developed about which students had answers, and which ones did not.

Near the end of the course, the teacher assigned a particularly difficult problem to the class. The night before it was due, the students gathered as they had been throughout the course, and worked as hard as they could to find the answer. One student who had a reputation for not being as smart claimed he had the answer, and started to explain it to the others. But the smarter students quickly rejected his approach to the problem and told him to be quiet. Despite trying several times to describe his answer, he was ignored.

The next day the students handed in their homeworks, and the following week the professor returned their graded papers. He said that only one student had answered the difficult problem correctly. That student was the one who had tried to explain it to the others, but they would not listen.

The one student had found the correct answer in a book not used by the other students.

== The Wall ==

The leader of a nation traveled to a distant land, and planned to deliver a speech there. This leader was not known for having great intelligence, and in fact was often ridiculed within his own country. He wondered what he should say in the foreign country while he was there.

For decades, there had been a massive wall in this foreign land which denied its inhabitants the freedom to travel and visit relatives, or simply move to places having greater opportunity. Inhabitants who tried to surmount the wall were shot and killed. The region enclosed by the wall was subjected to communism; outside the wall capitalism and freedom existed.

The leader began to focus on the wall in connection with his planned speech, and proposed uttering the bold command, "tear down this wall."

But his top advisers, who were very experienced in politics and foreign policy, were adamantly against such a bold statement. They insisted on removing it from the speech. As each draft circulated these experts took the phrase out, but each time the leader inserted this phrase back in. The experts felt the phrase made the leader look foolish and hopelessly naive, and could not possibly have a positive effect. The experts were sure it would subject their leader to even more ridicule than he already endured.

But the leader did not care about the potential for ridicule, and he wanted to say what he felt was best for his audience. He ignored his experts and delivered the bold command as part of his speech.

The leader's advisers were horrified when they heard the words delivered in the actual speech. They braced for a backlash and criticism.

But two years later, to the amazement of the entire world, this wall that had stood for decades was torn down exactly as the leader courageously suggested.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070610/18speeches.htm</ref>

== The Fly Ball ==

One Sunday afternoon a dozen teenagers gathered for a game of coed softball against a rival team from another [[church]]. As the first team's coach assigned his players to positions in the field, he noticed a new player on his team whom he had seen only before in church services. She suffered from a severe case of [[cerebral palsy]], making it difficult for her to walk or use her arms. But she always had a smile on her face, and she brought a [[softball]] glove to play.

The coach, against his better judgment, told her to be the right-fielder. The coach knew that in softball the ball is hit to the right field less frequent than to other positions. This was supposed to be a friendly game between churches, but turned out to be far more competitive than that.

The game went smoothly for several innings. But the other team was good, and it was hitting the ball hard.

The inevitable disaster then struck in the 6th inning, with several runners on base and two outs. A batter for the other team hit a line drive directly at the right fielder.

The coach, and indeed his entire team, turned in dreadful anticipation as they watched the ball travel at a high speed right at the player with cerebral palsy.

The player held up her glove and the ball smacked directly into its pocket. She had caught the third out. Her team erupted in cheers and her ever-present smile glowed even wider. Her team went on to win the game.

'''''Her teammates were inspired more by her catch than by anything else they saw the entire year'''''.

== The Story of Two Psychiatrists -- Or How To Deal With Liberal Critics ==
''Rowland Evans, the famed columnist, was having lunch with Ronald Reagan in 1987, six years into his presidency, a milestone by which the previous five presidents had been defeated, resigned in disgrace, refused to consider reelection, or assassinated. Somehow, Reagan was shining through, making it look easy, and was enormously popular. Evans, a tough old newsman, was in awe. He looked Reagan in the eye and said, “You know, Mr. President, I’ve known you for more than twenty years. I first met you in 1966, and the amazing thing is that you don’t look any older now than you did back then, and the criticism never gets you down. How do you do it?”''

In response, Reagan offered a parable. "Let me explain it this way":

Let me tell you the story of the two psychiatrists — the old psychiatrist and the young psychiatrist — who had a practice together. They’d come into their office every day just bubbling with enthusiasm, always happy, upbeat, smiling, and chipper. Then they’d go into their separate suites and have patients come in and lie on the couch all day and talk about the woes in their lives. At 6:00 p.m. they’d come out and the young psychiatrist would be devastated, wiped out by the day, with a stomachache, and just miserable. The old psychiatrist would be just as chipper and smiling and upbeat as he was when he went in that morning. This went on for a number of months.

Finally one day they came out at 6:00 p.m., the young psychiatrist devastated as usual, and the old psychiatrist just as happy and smiling as he was when went in. The young psychiatrist stopped him and said, “I don’t understand it. We do the same thing every day, and I leave wiped out by hearing patients all day, and you come out after patients have been streaming in and out of your office just as upbeat as ever. How do you do it?”

'''The old psychiatrist paused a minute and said, “I never listen.” ''' <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33189 Bob Novak, a Giant of Journalism ]</ref>

== Welfare ==

So, I was talking to this little girl Catherine, the daughter of some friends, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, [[liberal]] [[Democrats]], were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine - "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

Catherine replied - "I would give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 to use for a new house."

Catherine thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, "why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5?"

And I said, "Welcome to the [[Republican Party]]."

==The University Assignment==

A young student studying his first [[Politics]] assignment picked to answer the question - "Have we reached the end of political ideology?" The young student, as this was his first paper, studied hard and long to argue that there has been a rise in [[conservative]] thought in recent years as a response to growing [[globalization]] and encroaching [[liberalism]]. The lecturer gave the paper low marks despite solid referencing and an extensive bibliography. The young student felt slighted by this as he had put in many hours work. Instead of bowing down and re-writing the assignment according to [[professor values|his lecturer's standards]], the student petitioned the head of department to have his paper and final mark reviewed and also got several others to back him. In the end the student got an A grade.

==The Conservative Conference==

A [[conservative]] conference was scheduled for Sept. 25, 2001, expecting most attendees to travel by air. Unfortunately, on Sept. 11, 2001 there was the [[9/11]] terrorist hijacking of airplanes and a national crisis resulting in the grounding of airplanes for a week and widespread panic.

As a result, most conferences were cancelled, and the few that were held were poorly attended. Airplanes flew nearly empty for weeks once they were allowed to fly at all.

Though he expected few others to attend, one [[conservative]] rejected the objections of his family and flew out to the conference. He saw only two other passengers on his 140-seat airplane. He checked into the hotel and felt that at least he could cheer up the conference organizers when no one else showed up.

But to his great surprise, everyone else showed up. The other attendees concluded that both [[logic]] and [[faith]] weighed in favor of traveling to the conference. There was no logical reason for staying home, and [[faith]] eliminated any anxiety. In fact, the [[conservatives]] did not even waste time discussing their decisions to attend, at a time when nearly all other travelers acted irrationally and avoided airplanes.

== The Convert ==

Born in 1910, this child suffered from a physical handicap as a youngster and could not attend regular school. He had to wear leg braces and was eventually enrolled in a school for "physical defectives." But that school was managed by the same organization that ran the school for "mental defectives" and, as he later explained, there was "some overlapping in the curriculum." As a result,
he spent his days in basket-weaving classes, and was deprived of any formal academic instruction until age 10.

But he worked hard, and eventually found his way to the [[London School of Economics]], the top school of its kind in the world.

He was an avid [[socialist]], as were most of his fellow students. But in his senior year, he happened to take an [[economics]] seminar taught by Professor [[Arnold Plant]]. That course was devoted to the "[[invisible hand]]." It did not have any readings, and focused on stimulating discussions instead.

This young man's prior educational background may not have given him as much knowledge as his classmates, but it did give him an open mind. This single course changed his life, as he embraced the logic and power of the free market.

Later he immigrated to the United States and became an economics professor. But unlike most of his colleagues, he avoided mathematical equations and formulae, bucking the modern trend in his field.

His extraordinary insight was that the free market always reaches the most efficient level of productive activity, in the absence of [[transaction costs]].

In 1991, he was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics. His name is [[Ronald Coase]]. To this day [[liberals]] fail to give him the recognition he earned.<ref>[http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/schlafly.pdf The Coase Theorem: The Greatest Economic Insight of the 20th Century]</ref>

== The Little Red Hen - Ronald Reagan Version ==
'''''"About a year ago I imposed a little poetry on you. It was called "The Incredible Bread Machine" and made a lot of sense with reference to matters economic. You didn't object too much so having gotten away with it once I'm going to try again. This is a little treatise on basic economics called 'The Modern little Red Hen.'"''''' <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wS6LcPIDRFIC&lpg=PA381&dq=%22Ronald%20Reagan%3A%20the%20power%20of%20conviction%20and%20the%20success%20of%20his%20presidency%22%20%22Little%20Red%20Hen%22&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Ronald Reagan'' By Peter J. Wallison]</ref>

----

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.
But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread....

== Socialism ==
A Parable about Socialism

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, as she worked with other people in a group. Most of them were competent and they all worked more or less to the best of their abilities. However, due to the fact that she had formed the group, she got to distribute the grades and often saved the best for herself, based solely on the fact that she formed the group, rather than on individual performance and despite the fact that all the others worked just as hard and contributed just as much,

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. She hasn't sucked up to anyone, nor has she been particularly ruthless. As a result, I've only given her a 2.0, despite her working just as hard as me. Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of your GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I formed the group! I had an idea that others, like Audrey, improved upon and then combined with their own ideas, then I took the credit and praise. I should be the one who gets the grades, even if the others are putting forth just as much if not more effort.'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the conservative's philosophy.'

===Socialism In The Classroom===
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and
no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we
will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no
one will fail and no one will receive an A," said the professor.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The
students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied
very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little
studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they
couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise they all failed.

The professor told them that socialism, too, would ultimately fail because of the same basic human principles of incentive.

The harder people try to succeed the greater their reward (capitalism), but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

= Other Parables =

== The Drowning Man ==

A conservative and a liberal are walking along the beach when they see a man drowning a hundred feet off shore. The conservative throws him a 50 foot rope and shouts to the victim "You provide the other fifty feet." The liberal throws the man a 200 foot rope...and lets go of both ends.

== The Missing Child ==
A little girl is late home from school one day. Her mother becomes increasingly worried and after 15 minutes have passed is beside herself with anxiety. Afraid to leave the house in case the child returns, and desperate to go look for her, she is on the verge of telephoning the police when the child waltzes in through the door as though nothing is amiss. Relieved and angry the mother cries: "Where have you been?! I've been so worried!"

The child answers that she had been with the woman who lived just next door, who had very recently lost her husband. "What have you been doing bothering the poor lady next door?" the mother asks crossly.

"I haven't been bothering her, I've been comforting her," says the little girl.

"Comforting her? You're just a child, what could you do to comfort her?"

"I sat in her lap and I cried with her."

Sometimes there are ''no'' solutions, no smart come-backs, no quick fixes that can be determined through intellectual reasoning or policy making. As Dreher says: '''Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.'''<ref>Dreher, Rod. "A Crunchy Con Manifesto" [http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/about/ National Review Online]. 26 December 2007.</ref><ref>Cottrell, Stephen. ''I Thirst.'' (Zondervan; Grand Rapids, [[Michigan]]; 2003.) ISBN 0-310-25069-2</ref>

== The Atheist and the Believer ==
An atheist and a believer were having a discussion. "I don't believe in anything I can't understand!" cried the atheist. "Ah," said the believer gently. "Then your beliefs must be very small."

== Communism ==

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who ''understands'' Marx and Lenin." <ref>[http://listverse.com/2009/02/21/20-great-quotes-from-ronald-reagan/ Ronald Reagan; Communism]</ref>

== Umgawa ==
by R.W. Grant

While junketing in Africa
Our senator one day
A friendly tribe did gather 'round
To hear what he would say.

Said he, "I bring enlightment!"
"Umgawa!" they all cried
"If you'd but follow our advice!"
"Umgawa!" they replied.

"I'll tell you how our system works,
I'll tell you how it's run:
We serve the public good by force!
And this is how it's done:

"If one needs what others earn
No longer need one steal it!
Our government now does the job
And people hardly feel it!

"Umgawa!" they cried out again -
The senator continued then:
And we will show you how it's done,
And we will show the way,
So you may have Utopia
As in the U.S.A.!"

Our senator was finished now.
The chief rose with a smile:
"Thank you for your words," he said,
"Now stay with us a while!"

The senator was pleased as punch
With witnessing that day
The happy people at their work,
The children at their play,
As he was greeted all about:
"Umgawa!" was the happy shout.

And now the chieftain said, "My friend,
Come see our cattle which we tend!"
So off across the pasture now
The senator was led -
But suddenly the chief said "Wait!"
He took his arm and said:

"A word of caution ere we pass -
Don't step before you look -
Lest, my friend, you tread upon
Umgawa underfoot!"

== The Graduate's Gift ==

An arrogant young man was getting ready to graduate from college. For many months he had admired a beautiful sports car in a dealer's showroom, and knowing his wealthy father could easily afford it, he told him that was all he wanted.

As Graduation Day approached, the young man awaited signs that his father had purchased the car. Finally, on the morning of his graduation, his father called him into his private study. His father told him how proud he was to have such a fine son, and told him how much he loved him. He handed his son a beautifully wrapped gift box. Curious, and somewhat disappointed, the young man opened the box and found a lovely, leather-bound Bible, with the young man's name embossed in gold.

Angry, he shouted at his father and said "with all your money, you give me a Bible?" and stormed out of the house.

Many years passed and the young man had become very successful in business. He had a beautiful home and wonderful family, but realized his father now was getting old, and thought perhaps he should go see him. He had not seen him since that graduation day. Before he could make arrangements, he received a telegram telling him his father had passed away, and willed all of his possessions to his son. He needed to come home immediately and take care of things.

When he arrived at his father's house, sudden sadness and regret filled his heart. He began to search through his father's important papers and saw the still gift-wrapped Bible, just as he had left it years ago. With tears, he opened the Bible and began to turn the pages. His father had carefully underlined a verse, Matt.7:11, "And if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father which is in Heaven, give to those who ask Him?"

As he read those words, a car key dropped from the back of the Bible. It had a tag with the dealer's name, the same dealer who had the sports car he had wanted. On the tag was the date of his graduation, and the words PAID IN FULL.

== The Pitcher, the Chicken, and the Crow ==
A thirsty chicken and a thirsty crow were each given a pitcher of water. First they tried reaching into the pitchers with their beaks, but neither could reach the water. Then they tried pushing the pitchers over, but they were heavy and sturdily built so they would not tip.

The chicken began flapping its wings and strutted up to the crow. "No fair!" squawked the chicken "the greedy farmer hasn't given us enough water." The crow shrugged, and began hopping around the pitcher, looking at it this way and that.

The chicken strutted off and went to complain to the farmer. It squawked and squawked, but the farmer ignored it. It went back to the crow, who was grabbing pebbles in his beak and dropping them into its pitcher with pebbles. "Come with me!" it said, "Let's demand that the farmer give us our water!" The crow ignored it and returned to his work.

The chicken went again to the farmer and decided to take its protest to the next level. It scratched and pecked at the farmer's leg, cutting the skin, until the farmer angrily kicked it away. Indignant, the chicken went back to the crow, squawking more than ever. "That brutal farmer kicked me," it complained. "when all I was doing was demanding my rights."

By this point the crow was standing on the top of his pitcher, happily drinking. He had dropped enough pebbles into the pitcher that the water level had risen nearly to the top. The chicken saw this and walked up to the crow to complain. "Unfair!" it cried. "I want water too."

The crow looked over at the chicken and told him: "I have water because while you were complaining, I was looking for a way to get the water. The first two ways did not work, but I kept trying until I came up with something better. Then I patiently put in the hard work to put my plan into action, and now, finally, I can drink. You can do the same with your pitcher, and you will have water too. You are bigger and stronger than me, so it will be even easier for you."

The chicken strutted over to his pitcher and picked up one pebble and dropped it in and sat down. "This is hard work!" it complained "I'm thirsty and I'm tired."

The crow looked over at the chicken and said "just this one time I will be charitable. You can drink from my pitcher, but next time you must do the work yourself."

The chicken hopped up and stuck its head down. Because its beak was shorter than the crow's, it could not quite reach the water.

"You cheated me!" it cried, "I cannot reach the water!"

"I am sorry," said the crow, "but you are only a few pebbles short. Surely you can do the tiny bit of work yourself."

The crow flew off, its thirst satiated. The chicken scratched at the ground and squawked and squawked but nobody would listen and it stayed thirsty.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Parables]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] Example 3 [the enacted parable]
{{Conservatism}}

Travelling Salesman Problem

2012-01-15T23:23:53Z

KingHanksley:

The [[Travelling Salesman Problem]] is a problem that seeks to find the shortest way of getting through a [[network]], starting from any point, visiting every other point, in the shortest time. It is commonly modelled as a network of [[arc]]s and [[node]]s.

It is a common example of an [[algorithm]] that has to be solved [[heuristic]]ally; while it is possible to solve it with brute force, by trying every single route and finding the shortest, this is impractical, since the number of routes increases [[factorial]]ly; while a 3-node network has only 6 routes, a 10-node one has 3,628,800.

== Example letting simulated evolution find a good solution ==

The [[salesman]] should visit a number of towns, one at a time, and wants to know in what order they should be visited in order to make the tour as short as possible.

Suppose that the number of towns is = 60. For a random search process, this is like having a deck of cards numbered 1, 2, 3, ... 59, 60 where the number of permutations is of the same order of magnitude as the total number of atoms in the universe. If the hometown is not counted the number of possible tours becomes 60*59*58*...*4*3 (about 10 raised to 80, 10^80, 1. e. a 1 followed by 80 zeros).

Suppose that the salesman does not have a map showing the location of the towns, but only a deck of numbered cards, which he may permute, put in a card reader - like in the childhood of computers - and let the computer calculate the length of the tour. The probability to find the shortest tour by random permutation is about one in 10^80 so, it will never happen. So, should he give up?

No, by no means, evolution may be of great help to him; at least if it could be simulated on his computer. The natural evolution uses an [[inversion operator]], which - in principle - is taylored for finding good solutions to the problem. A part of the card deck - chosen at random - is taken out, turned in opposite direction and put back in the deck again like in the figure below with 6 towns. The hometown (nr 1) is not counted.

[http://web.telia.com/~u91131915/resor7.GIF]

If this inversion takes place where the tour happens to have a loop, then the loop is opened and the salesman is guaranteed a shorter tour. The probability that this will happen is greater than 1/(60*60) for any loop if we have 60 towns, so, in a population with one million card decks it might happen 1000000/3600 = 277 times that a loop will disappear.

This has been simulated with a population of 180 card decks, from which 60 decks are selected in every generation (using MATLAB, the language of technical computing). The figure below shows a random tour at start

[http://web.telia.com/~u91131915/resastart60.GIF]

After about 1500 generations a tour with no loops has been found and the length of the random tour at start has been reduced to 1/5 of the original tour. The human eye can see that some improvements can be made, but probably the random search has found a tour, which is not much longer than the shortest possible. See figure below.

[http://web.telia.com/~u91131915/resa250.GIF]

In a special case when all towns are equidistantly placed along a circle, the optimal solution is found when all loops have been removed. This means that this simple random search is able to find one optimal tour out of as many as 10^80. This random process is also similar to evolution in the sense that it uses random variation and selection in cyclic repetition. This also means that the cyclic repetition of random variation and selection of individuals is a very important principle for creating a huge amount of [[information]]. See Goldberg, 1989.

== References ==

* Goldberg, D. E. Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization & Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1989.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2012-01-13T07:20:06Z

KingHanksley: /* Debatable Whether Conservative */

Here are some of the greatest conservative television shows:

# ''Family Ties'': a [[conservative]] teenager (played by Michael J. Fox) tries to enlighten his [[liberal]], ex-hippie, underachieving<ref>The father was criticized by the son for working for less money at a public television station, rather than in free enterprise.</ref> parents.
# ''The Office'': mockery of liberal ideology and [[political correctness]] in an office setting, without a liberal [[laugh track]]. The main character repeatedly encounters contradictions and absurdities as he tries to conform to liberal expectations. The show was most popular when its humor was conservative, and has declined in quality and popularity as its conservative humor has been diluted. Steve Carell played the main character for 6 years and was denied an Emmy by liberals every time, despite being by far the funniest actor on television.
# ''The Apprentice'': liberals stopped watching when they realized that [[Donald Trump]] might be conservative.
# The ''Six Million Dollar Man'': capitalism at its finest - technological advances improving life.
# ''The Cosby Show'': promoting good family values.
# ''American Idol'': allowing the best of the public to come to the fore, musically.
# ''24'': Jack Bauer shows us how to beat Islamic terrorists.
# ''Star Trek'': emphasized morality, honor, abiding by a strict code of conduct, and problem solving in a science fiction setting that inspired real world innovations; a strong cultural celebration of excellence. Portrayed the Cold War struggle as a conflict between the democratic Federation (USA) and the authoritarian, collectivist Klingons (the Soviet Union), correctly forecast the eventual winner.
# ''The Waltons'': a family with strong Christian values overcomes hardship in rural America and extends charity to strangers while also honoring military service.
# ''The Lawrence Welk Show'': a clean, family oriented variety show that appealed to Midwestern values.
# ''Chuck'': emphasizes family values, honor, and a respect for our nation's servicemen.
# ''Little House on the Prairie'': A show that celebrates family values and the courage of the pioneers who made our country what it is today.
# ''Touched by an Angel'': a popular drama about an angel in human form who visited troubled people in crisis, it was a highly ranked series for four seasons and ran for a remarkable nine seasons.
# ''Life is Worth Living'': Emmy Award winning show hosted by Archbishop [[Fulton Sheen]]. Between 10 & 30 million people watched the show weekly on moral issues of the day.
# ''7th Heaven'': Show about a Christian minister's family, that dealt with moral and controversial themes, which are approached from a socially and politically conservative Protestant Christian point of view. It was the longest-running family drama in U.S. television history.<ref>[http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1028153,00.html]</ref>
# ''Life Goes On'': Follows the experiences of a young man with Down Syndrome and recognizes the dignity of people with developmental disabilities and the joy and love they give to their families and others.
# ''Dragnet'': starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday and his partner(s) solving actual cases from the files of the Los Angeles Police Department. Great use of law enforcement jargon by the officers while educating the public on the Rule of Law. Showed fine examples of moral conduct, honor of self/others and sacrifice for the good of the public.
# ''Parking Wars'': Demonstrates the offensiveness of overbearing government bureaucracy while maintaining a respect for law officers.
# ''Pawn Stars'': Shows how two parties can **mutually and fairly benefit** from a negotiated free-market transaction, independent of any government "assistance"
# ''The Bob Newhart Show'': a mockery of how crazy people become in a secular world.
# ''Hawaii-Five-O'': Even in what might be expected to be a lazy, hazy paradise, the law is still the law.
# ''Daniel Boone'': As the famous title music sang, "he fought for America, to make all Americans free".
# ''MacGyver'': The main character uses Yankee ingenuity to solve various problems and escape the clutches of his enemies. Eschews violence until absolutely necessary.
# ''Walker, Texas Ranger'': starring [[Chuck Norris]]
# ''NCIS'': Show about Navy Cops, was voted ''America's favorite tv show in 2011''
# ''Mission: Impossible'': emphasizes teamwork, friendship, professionalism. Posits that American ingenuity and exceptionalism can overcome any obstacle
# ''Storage Wars'': emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[conservative values|personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills.
# ''The Prisoner (1968)'': Classic British TV show about a secret agent who is sent to a strange "village" in order to determine the reasons for his resignation. The Prisoner is a metaphor for the Individual against the Collective.
# ''Yes, Minister!'' and ''Yes, Prime Minister!'': Classic British sit-com about the political machinations of being a cabinet member in the British government, and then eventually as Prime Minister. A recurring theme is that of the struggle of politicians to make the desired changes against the bureaucracy.
# ''Storm Chasers'': demonstrates core conservative values such as courage and a thirst for practical, scientific knowledge
# ''Cops'': the good guys protecting the public from criminals.
#''The Pretender'': pro-life, and with a message of charity and self-sacrifice as personal responsibility.
#''Dick Van Dyke Show'': pro-marriage and pro-religion, and launched the career of Mary Tyler Moore

(please add to list)

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

# ''The Twilight Zone'': a recurring theme is that the selfish and the self-centered eventually lose what they sought to gain.
# ''The Beverly Hillbillies'': though silly, the show is powerful in illustrating how material possessions are not what define a person.
# ''King of the Hill'': despite cartoonish nature, shows the struggle of a hardworking, traditional American family against "alternative" modern cultural movements
# ''Antiques Roadshow'': shows the very real (financial and historical) value of handcrafts and traditional, old-fashioned things and memorabilia.
# ''The Larry Sanders Show'': a dark comedy based around the background of a [[Hollywood]] talk show, showing a great deal of liberal and celebrity hypocrisy and mocking them for their behavior.
# ''Breaking Bad'': a previously law-abiding chemistry teacher gets involved in the drug trade and destroys himself and his family. Each immoral decision leads him further along the path of destruction. The evildoers all suffer for their actions.

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]

Talk:Worst College Majors

2012-01-13T06:54:50Z

KingHanksley: /* One list for Worst (liberal) Majors and one for Worst Majors for job prospects? */

In deference to JDWPianist, I'll defer to his change of "Music" to "Music Therapy," but "Music" as a college major is pretty useless. Maybe it's OK as a hobby, but not something that someone would profitably pay $100,000 for in terms of a degree except in the most unusual situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

Just like to note that Women Studies is not on any of the lists in the sources given for this page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:28, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:You're right, and it's not hard to understand why. The [[liberal denial]] is too obvious for words.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:38, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Information in our articles should match up with sources used and not have information inserted with no backing. If there is a source that states Women Studies to be the worst college degree then it should of course be outlined in this article. Cause right now it seems to be more of opinion that it is number 1 because the lack of a source. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 13:47, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well perhaps you should start your own project, Irene. However the pendulum for tolerating liberal clap-trap is rapidly swinging against them, and it might not be worth your investment. My suggestion is that you open your mind; the truth will indeed set you free! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::I am unsure as to where you are going with this TK. I am merely pointing out a fault with the article and getting fed back alot of liberal nonsense and wordism. Am i wrong to say the article is not backing up what the sources say? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 17:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: Hmmm, I would have to agree that Women's Studies didn't seem to have any practical applications in the workforce. So looked at the UC Davis college catalog to see what it had to say ([http://registrar.ucdavis.edu/UCDWebCatalog/PDF/14GenCatProg.pdf pg 385] - Warning, its a huge file!). I guess there are some realistic applications like counseling, medicine, or law. While there are obviously far better majors to prepare a student for these fields, I suppose that its not completely useless (like Star Trek or Surfing Studies!). Anyway, I hope this helps! [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 17:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Irene certainly has a point, the material is not sourced. Pointing that out is certainly not liberalism in and of itself. Are we intending to argue that the uselessness of that particular major is self-evident? (I certainly know of no use for it, but then again I really have no idea what they teach you)

Personally I'm not sure how credible a source on the usefulness of any particular college degree could possibly be. Have they actually backed up their analysis with solid research? I doubt it. I'm not sure this entire page is exactly encyclopedic. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the Essay namespace where it may prove a useful resource for students but won't be making the value-judgment (i.e. subjective, un-encyclopedic) about what is or isn't useful. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 17:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

: It only took me a minute or two to find many websites describing how bad a major "women's studies" is. I added one. More generally, what's wrong with a little "[[caveat emptor]]" for college majors? People are paying a ton of money plus [[opportunity cost]] on college, and it seems worth spending at least a little effort separating the wheat from the chaff.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::Well you can say that is a source, but Insider? is just a gossip site on celebrities primarily. How are we determining credibility of sources here on CP? --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 22:48, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Irene, there are dozens of sites stating the obvious. [[Liberal denial]] of obvious truths has no place here. Look in earnest yourself if you sincerely doubt the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:11, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I do not doubt Women Studies being useless. But i thought i raised a valid question, on determining credibility. For even when Conservapedia is right, which it often is, it should still need backing of credible sources to persuade doubters. Gives a much better foundation on Conservapedia's part; rather then excepting any yahoos opinion that is swayed by liberal bias. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 23:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Putting aside the question of whether or not women's studies should be on the list of worst college majors, I agree with [[User:IreneK|IreneK]] that the source cited is not a credible source. Not only is ''The Insider'' hardly a reliable source, (it appears to be a liberal celebrity gossip site - I hope CP isn't going to start relying on that sort of thing!), the article is not even written by someone on ''The Insider'''s editorial staff. The article would be stronger and more persuasive if a more reliable source was cited. 
:::::For what it's worth, my impression has been that women's studies is often a minor, rather than a major, course of study, as a complement to another field. (In the same way that many people take philosophy courses in college, because they can be quite interesting, but few people major in philosophy, as there is not much of a market for it.) I don't know how accurate this impression is.
:::::Whether a particular course of study is worthwhile or not is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the person willing to pay for such classes), so any list such as this one is to some extent opinion rather than fact. Nonetheless, the article should at least have a source for whether the number of students pursuing such a major is increasing or decreasing (as mentioned in the current source), or what the job prospects really are, or what a typical starting salary for graduates might be. A quick Google search produced [http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/u-majors/pdf/womst.pdf this interesting document] from Ohio State, which might be worth looking at with an eye towards putting some of the info in the CP article. ''"After graduation, about half of women’s studies majors attend graduate or professional school, while others find employment in government and nonprofit agencies and organizations, as well as private businesses."'' Alas, it it quite late, so I don't have time to look for additional sources. 
:::::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:16, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Dare I say there's a worse major than Women's Studies? "Queer Studies," which grows ever more common, is an entire degree in justifying the homosexual agenda. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 23:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Does any American college offer a Men's Studies program or a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Program? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:09, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::A quick Google says [http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/MensStudies.html#2 yes]. I believe many more offer Gender Studies courses, which presumably include both mens' and women's perspectives. Protestant universities would be a good place to look for courses on the experiences of Protestants in the US; similarly Catholic universities offer various courses from a Catholic perspective, and so on. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

I tried to edit this article but they got reverted almost right away. I am new here but have been looking at many articles in the past and editing this article based on the talk page and also the provided sources. In the provided links they do not make mention of atheism and only mention religion. Most people I know that went into religious studies went into it because they had a passion for it and were not looking for money. Should this be changed or even removed? Also the sourced articles read more like opinion pieces including the insider one and the learnfinancialplanning.com article that actually got its information from holytaco.com (which looks to be comedy site). Anyone disagree or should I go ahead and make these changes? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 15:15, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: I do disagree. If students are enrolling in religion with good intentions, then all the more reason to alert them to what that field of study has really become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::I agree with john here. And students could just as easily find other ''opinionated'' articles in support for all of these majors.

::I agree with the idea that this isn't an encylopedic entry and should be moved to a debate page. --[[User:IreneK|IreneK]] 19:38, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

::: But the article is about how much the major makes monetarily which would include religion and many other studies , but to many people they enjoy what they do and wouldn't trade it in. Teaching for example does not pay the best of wages , but that does not stop people for pursuing a degree and having a passion for it and there are many good teachers out there. The same goes for writing, Dance, Philosophy, and even music. There are a lot of different majors in the world and going into someone just to earn money is more of a [[Social Darwinism]] type belief and not a good one at that. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 21:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: The criticisms of these majors goes far beyond their lack of economic value. You protest too much, rather than adding information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::

I am more than happy to add or change information to this article but last time I did this I was banned (I did however move star trek to courses since Georgetown does not offer a degree for star trek) and I do agree that some of the degrees and courses have little value in today's world (I do disagree with some of them as well) but the articles sourced and the link for women studies are all based on how much a degree earns and opinionated which is very un-encyclopedic. Now I did find another article related to courses that I think we can add based on the non usefulness of courses like star trek, harry potter, soap opera. Any thought of if the following link should be used?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701401_2.html?sid=ST2007100701675

How about also a rewrite of the first part and state the following and remove the information about debt since as you stated this is not about economic value.

The worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities in the field of study and often a distorted and liberal view of the world.

Then source each field of study and why it gives the person a distorted view of the world and leave them few job opportunities.

For example for Parapsychology link to the either of the following articles.

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm

http://www.rsd.edu/schools/rhs/mst/reading/005_Why_Parapsychology_is_a_Pseudoscience.pdf

[[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:34, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

any reason why the change to star trek was reverted. This is not a degree but instead a course offered by Georgetown. Should this be changed back to put it under courses? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 12:05, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:If Star Trek is merely a course, please do move it back to the course section. But you continue to protest too much about the inclusion of women's studies. If you think that major has significant value worth the $200,000 that many spend on college, then please simply say what you think that value is. Would you pay $200,000 for the courses taught in women's studies? If so, why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:: I moved it back to sourced and sourced the link to Georgetown. I actually am not protesting inclusion of woman's studies as you might believe and actually fixed the sourcing of it to two articles that I hope you find as useful. What I am protesting is sourcing. The links provided are opinionated and in some of them un-sourced. For example how is Golf Management not useful? This degree is not based on playing golf but managing a golf course, working at a country club, etc. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== Proposal: move to "Essay: Worst College Majors" ==

I think it would be more appropriate as it really fits in with [[Essay|this list]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 22:17, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I would agree with that and think it would work well as as an essay or even under debate [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:19, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

== English? ==

I understand that most English professors are liberal, as are most professors in general. Hence [[professor values]]. However, I am a conservative English major, and I know several others who are as well. Although liberal writers are studied, so are powerful conservative and Christian writers like Dostoevsky, Rand, Shakespeare, and Milton. I developed most of my conservative principles through studying literature, and I am not the only one. Liberals do use English as an avenue for indoctrination, but they do the same with Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, and other subjects. In fact, I find all three of those subjects to be much less open-minded than English. Biology and Anthropology, for example, teach that Evolution is fact, and not-so-subtly promote atheism. I have never had an English class that does this, but any English professor who did so could be reported to the Dean and condemned for such actions. Plus, English focuses mostly on composition, comprehension, and critical thinking, which is why it is a very important major for the Journalism and Publishing industries, and is a common undergraduate degree prior to Law and Business graduate schools. I am not saying English is the best major, but rating it worse than subjects like Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies makes no sense. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:14, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:Majoring in English leaves virtually no job opportunities to those who take it. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 19:24, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's both untrue and irrelevant to my comment. If one wants to go into publishing, for instance, an English degree is generally expected. It is also a good major for professional school opportunities. It is also well-regarded in journalism. I said this, and you seem to have willfully ignored it. Does this mean you think Comic Book Art and Surfing Studies have more job opportunities than English? And, in any case, my removal of English seems to have been reverted on the grounds that the English major is a deceitful liberal institution, which as a conservative English major I am trying to refute. It has many liberals, and some of the professors are biased, but that is true of every single major on many college campuses. I find the English major's inclusion on this list to be a blatant generalization, and I suspect it comes from ignorance as to what an English major at a good university actually entails. [[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 7:42, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Point ==
The entire premise of this essay is that education is merely all about getting a job. That's a particularly small-minded approach to education - for some, education and expansion of knowledge is an end in and of itself. If women's studies or religion is something you're simply interested in, and have no intention of ever earning a living doing it, it's absurd to call it a "worst college major".

Even if this is the case, the suggestion that 'Film Studies' is a unlikely to get you a job is entirely bogus, given the number of film school grads who go on to work in the industry. Interior Decorating? Countless jobs in the field exist - the entire construction industry needs interior decorators to do the very last part of the project. Comic Book Art - with the total conversion of the blockbuster movie business to simply producing versions of graphic novels, the comic business is booming, and good artists are very well paid indeed. Others you list do indeed have unlikely employability, but in that case, revert to my first point - one may not be studying these with any intention of getting a job. I have taken a collegel-level study in Etruscan pottery, and neither work in the field of archeology nor ever intend to - I just found their beauty entrancing. Perhaps you ought to take a course on 'Balance'? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 07:23, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:The entire premise of this article was based on news reports and opinions on the subject that have been around for a couple years. Perhaps you should open your own mind a bit more instead of complain about our lack of "balance". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

==English Literature==
Why is English Literature on this list? It has a long and venerable history as a degree subject, and studying [[Shakespeare]], [[Milton]], [[John Donne]] and the like gives deep and valuable insights into all kinds of subjects. Indeed, many of the words on the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Terms]] list derive from the great works of English literature. It would be barbarous to drive the study of English literature out of our universities, and categorising it alongside surfing studies is an insult to [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Caxton]], [[John Bunyan]] and everyone else who helped to pioneer the establishment of English as a cultured tongue admired by people in every country of today's world.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:18, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:I don't think the classics you cite are the focus of study in "English lit/Literary Criticism" majors anymore, but I have an open mind about this.

:Wasn't the [[Virginia Tech]] mass murderer taking courses in this major?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

:We do study these authors very extensively. I have taken semester-long classes on both Milton and Shakespeare, two quite conservative, Christian writers. The Milton class is very popular, and the Shakespeare class is specifically required for the major. Also, I see no reason to believe the Virginia Tech shooter’s actions were due to his major. Shouldn’t we be inclined to expect familial and social problems long before we demonize his area of academic study?--[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 14:03, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

::It probably depends on the university or college in question. I'm not saying every literature course is worthwhile, but we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:38, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::To Andy: I just wanted to ask, are you, by your statement, implying that there is a correlation between the fact that the Virginia Tech murderer was taking courses in English Literature and the fact that he became a mass murderer? Or was it merely a request for information, not meant to infer anything?
:::If you were actually implying that there might be a correlation between majoring in English AND becoming a murdering psychopath (or, the other way round: that potential murdering psychopaths are more likely to choose English as a major), could you please elaborate and explain your point of view? Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 15:06, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Garbage in, garbage out. The "murdering psychopath" (your phrase) was indeed an English Lit. major. The failure to see the problem in the killer's work and the reaction of his English Lit. professors afterward struck me as very bizarre.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: But exactly, how could one have "seen the problem in the killer's work" beforehand? Were there dissertations and projects in which he displayed strange ideas and behavior? And what exactly was the reaction of his English Literature professors afterward? Sorry if I keep asking but I am not very familiar with the details. Anyway, had he been studying Engineering or Information Technology I don't think it would have changed much :) --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 18:38, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Marco, the better approach is to gather the facts first, with an open mind, and only afterward draw the conclusion. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

:::::: As discussed here in detail at the time, the killer's work did display "strange ideas and behavior," but English Lit. professors continued to pass him and accept his work. Other details are readily available here. But if you're going to insist that ideas and majors cannot have any effect on behavior, then it won't matter to you what the facts are. Please reconsider with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: A person's major clearly affects them and the choices they will make later in life. The Virginia tech shooter chose English lit. and used it to write down his perverse fantasies. Even if someone majoring in English lit. doesn't become a murderer they are wasting money by studying something that won't give them skills valuable in the [[Free market]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm sorry, I guess I'm a bit "partisan" in the debate because I have a Master's Degree in English and French literature, and I consider myself completely normal, and everyone else I met (and I met many people) also seemed to be a perfectly normal and healthy human being! But I guess that to an already troubled mind, studies of literature or philosophy may provide a "spark" of madness more easily than other studies. After all, literature often touches on the dark side of the human soul. I guess it could count as a factor... but I think that a mind would already need to be troubled beforehand :) Just my two cents! --[[User:MarcoT|MarcoT]] 19:46, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Andy Schlafly, I joined this site with the hope of improving the (frankly dismal) articles related to English literature, from a conservative, Christian point-of-view. Considering the lack of such material here, I thought this would be appreciated. However, if such awful generalizations will be made about my major after the actions of a VT student with serious problems in his mind, faith, and family, my only conclusion can be that I was wrong, and you have very negative pre-conceived tendencies against English literature. My edits would therefore have gone unappreciated, and I am disappointed. Enjoy the few embarrassingly incomplete literature articles you do have, and enjoy, of course, your open-mindedness. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 19:56, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Ckirk, your [[Parthian shot]] illustrates my point well. You criticize me personally while also trying to insult this site, and then announce your grand exit after a mere handful of edits. Of course, I did not criticize "English literature"; rather, the criticism is of the major of English Lit. as it is taught today. May I suggest you consider ranting elsewhere now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: "At best, last wordism is childish. At worst, it reflects a lack of restraint or bullying, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin." - from the Conservapedia article on [[last wordism]]. If you think I left, why direct a comment at me other than to obtain the "last word" here? I only say this because I think you could learn a lot if you adopted conservative principles. You seem to have more in common with radical liberals than with true conservatives. Somehow I think you know that to be true. Now please block me. I've wasted enough of my time here. And don't forget to add the last word. --[[User:Ckirk|Ckirk]] 23:28, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you have no one to blame but yourself if you choose to rant rather than produce. Please find a different scapegoat. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== i think evolutionary biology is a major not just a course ==

Additionally a search on www.gradschools.com reveals 148 graduate programs in it. [[User:RebekahH|RebekahH]] 16:12, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== Do these majors even exist? ==

First, I’d like to concur with others’ opinion that claims that these majors “leave the student with relatively few job opportunities” should be properly documented, or withdrawn. But some of these alleged “worst college majors” don’t seem to even exist. There are several easily located websites with comprehensive lists of available college majors, and none of them contains Comic Book Art, Parapsychology, Surfing Studies or Gambling/Gaming. As for the list of courses, yes, most of them seem silly, but they don’t fit the stated category of “fields of study.” [[User:GregF|GregF]] 23:41, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:Women's studies is a major having many tens of thousands of students nationwide. Gambling/gaming is a big major in Nevada, and perhaps some other states that now also have expansive gambling. I don't doubt that your other three examples exist too, at least at some schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

::I said nothing about Women's Studies, which I am aware is a common course of study at American universities. You "don't doubt" that the others exist but fail to provide any reason for this lack of doubt. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::One reason I don't doubt it is because they are too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:: GregF, did you even bothered looking before posting this complain? A quick google search show that the four degrees you mentioned in the message actually exist:
::Comic Book Art: Called "Sequencial Art", offered by [http://www.scad.edu/sequential-art/index.cfm Savannah College of Art and Design].
::Parapsychology: Offered by [http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/ptshortcpd/pgpt/Pages/pgpt.aspx?itemID=151 Coventry University].
::Surfing Studies: Called "Surf Science and Technilogy", offered by [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/courses/course.asp?id=1645 The University of Plymouth]
::Gambling/Gaming, offered by the [http://www.umac.mo/iscg/courses/gmdiphome.html University Of Macau]. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

:::Yes, I did look. I didn't find them; you did. Thanks. My point was that they should be documented. Now perhaps they should be listed by their correct names. Sequential Art is much broader than "Comic Book Art" and appears to be a type of Fine Arts degree and no less valid than one in Sculpture or Photography. And the "Gambling" degree is actually in Casino Management, which, given the importance of that industry in Macao, could be quite practical there. [[User:GregF|GregF]] 00:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Film==

I noticed that 'Film' has been reinstated, with the comment that the business is shrinking and jobs are scarce. I am one of those not-as-rare-as-you'd-think people - a Christian in the film business in 'Hollywood' (there are a surprising amount of us), and I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects between 10-30% growth in movie business employment between 2008-2018, for example[http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm]. The production companies I work for as a freelancer are ''all'' staffed almost entirely by film school grads (dating from 2011 students back to grads from the 60s), are growing and hiring like crazy, and they are desperately searching for more film school grads. There are graduates from all over the world working in this business, and I personally know film school grads from ''at least'' ten different film schools in the US who are busily at work here in Los Angeles - schools like Tisch, SCAD, Arts Centre, UCLA, USC, Vasser, Colorado Film School, etc - there's countless programs nowadays. In a business where experience is everything, film school grads are eminently hirable, and I think the suggestion that it is one of the "Worst College Majors" is utterly incorrect. If you can back up your claim with some figures, I'd be interested, but for now it seems you may be pre-judging these kids, based on the fact that they want to work in what is often a not particularly Christian business. But rest assured, there are plenty of art department, post-production, gaffers, DP's, runner and producers who are people of Faith, and we welcome more into our fold every day. Try not to pre-judge what is a highly employable field. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:33, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:The California government gives special benefits to the film industry there to prop it up and keep it going. The industry is generally declining. In other places I don't think most students who major in film have a realistic chance of getting a good job, and the benefits to the industry are likely to be cut. See, e.g., "Michigan spent $137.5 million in incentives to generate $80.6 million in film industry revenue" [http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/02/michigans_film_industry_to_fade_away_alo.html]. If a student knows someone in the industry who can get him or her a job, then that may work for a while. But if not, it looks pretty hopeless. I knew one college film major who struggled to find a summer job opportunity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

== One list for Worst (liberal) Majors and one for Worst Majors for job prospects? ==

The current list is a mixture of two negative qualities: liberalism (e.g. women's studies) and poor job-outlook (video game design). A major like video game design or architecture don't intrinsically embody liberal philosophies, but the job outlook for graduates with these majors is poor these days, while a major like evolutionary biology has liberal connotations but the job-outlook for these graduates is not bod (though not great, but certainly better than a film major, etc.). Some majors, like women's studies, fall into both camps. '''So should there be two lists: one for extremely liberal majors and one for majors that offer poor job prospects?'''

:Conciseness is favored here. If the major is at least partially a waste of time, then it belongs on the (one) list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

::Then how is ranking supposed to work for this list? At present, it's difficult to organize the list when it incorporates both liberal biased majors and non-liberal, useless majors.

:::It's obviously good to take down bs-y and preachy topics like "gender theory" and less obvious ones like comparative religion which is tinted with disbelief and lack of respect for religion. But should people turn away from majors like architecture and astronomy just because they're not as easily profitable? People with true ability and work ethic can go far in these fields and I would recommend any talented conservatives pursue those options. I would be proud to see more successful architects and astronomers with strong conservative values.
--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 02:11, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

==Video game design should be removed==

I find video game design to be a somewhat confusing entry. The video games industry is now larger than the film industry and a typical graduate with some experience can expect to enter a well paid job with good security. I'm involved in computer science research and I interact regularly with video games companies and the students themselves. Generally companies are interested in recruiting our graduates.

It's by no means a wasted degree, it's a good practical skill for a booming industry.

Furthermore, the source given for this leads nowhere, it's just an arbitrary statement. It means nothing. The claim that it's a bad major is unfounded and irrelevant.[[User:SecularConservative|SecularConserative]]
:Hi, I'm someone who has a degree in Video Game design and can't find a job because I don't live in California or Montrial. The places that hire video game designers are very limited and otherwise, someone will have to start their own business with no promise of a paycheck. That is why it is a poor choice of a diploma unless you are REALLY good at it or live in a prime location for the job. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]
::Thanks for the reply MHarris. I think that is a common factor across many industries, not just video games. Many of my colleagues have either a background in physics or computer science, which are very highly regarded fields of eduction. However, many of them have specialities and have had to travel to work. I admit though, my University has strong ties with video games companies and we are quite near one the major UK hubs of the video game industry.

==Interior Design==

Is interior design necessarily a bad major or is it just because the housing market is so bad? Do you really want to live in a box?
[[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 09:35, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Worst College Majors==

I read [http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/11/07/10-worst-college-majors-for-employment/ this article on Marketwatch today] and was interested in the topic, so I googled around a bit and found your article. You might want to add some of this info. [[User:EdRichstein|EdRichstein]] 14:45, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Tim Tebow

2012-01-11T20:29:22Z

KingHanksley: /* Playoffs */

==Playoffs==
Keep updating during the playoffs! Have a feeling he could pull off another upset. When I get the time I will try to add more details. I'm not into numerology though and find the front-page stuff about 316 a little silly, but I find Tebow's example inspiring and the more updates we have the better. Like to add something about how Tim never gets angry even when liberals have their irrational visceral reactions against him. I want to find some solid factual examples but that's definitely impressive to me, and speaks to the extent of his faith and confidence.

Talk:Tim Tebow

2012-01-11T20:29:02Z

KingHanksley: /* Playoffs */

==Playoffs==
Keep updating during the playoffs! Have a feeling he could pull off another upset. When I get the time I will try to add more details. I'm not into numerology though and find the front-page stuff about 316 a little silly, but I find Tebow's example inspiring and the more updates we have the better. Like to add something about how Tim never gets angry even when other people have their irrational visceral reactions against him. I want to find some solid factual examples but that's definitely impressive to me, and speaks to the extent of his faith and confidence.

Talk:Tim Tebow

2012-01-11T20:25:56Z

KingHanksley: Created page with "==Playoffs== Keep updating during the playoffs! Have a feeling he could pull off another upset. When I get the time I will try to add more details. I'm not into numerology though..."

Tim Tebow

2012-01-11T20:22:57Z

KingHanksley:

[[File:Tim Tebow.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Timothy Richard Tebow''', known as '''Tim Tebow''' (born August 14, 1987), is an [[American]] [[football]] player who first gained fame while playing for the Florida Gators. He was the first sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]] and led the Gators to two [[BCS]] Championships during his four years playing for the [[University of Florida]] at Gainesville. He was selected by the [[Denver Broncos]] as the 25th pick of the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. In 2011, after his team was in last place, the Broncos decided to start Tebow as quarterback. As quarterback, Tebow had an impressive seven-game win streak and took the Broncos to the division championship and a home-game appearance in the playoffs. He then led them to an upset playoff win over the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (headed by Hollywood-values quarterback [[Ben Roethlisberger]]) with 316 passing yards, confounding his critics. '''''Tebow is one of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] and was a runner-up for [[Conservative of the Year 2011]]'''''.

Tebow was [[homeschooled]] until college. He is an outspoken [[pro-lifer]], and his mother had been told to have an [[abortion]] rather than to give birth to him. Tebow appeared in a pro-life television ad that aired during the 2010 [[Super Bowl]], risking retaliation against his career by [[pro-aborts]] and the [[liberal media]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0127/Tim-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-an-astonishingly-bold-stand</ref>

Tebow gives frequent interviews to the liberal media and often leaves them speechless. He answered a highly personal question at a press conference about his sex life by revealing that he practices [[abstinence]]:<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090724&sportCat=ncf</ref>
{{cquote|I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question. ... I was ready for that question, but I don't think ya'll were.}}

Tebow volunteers on mission trips, one of which in the summer of 2008 to the [[Philippines]] was chronicled in an issue of the ''ESPN Magazine''.

==Personal life==

His faith in [[Christ]] is a well-known fact inside and outside the sports world.

== References ==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tebow, Tim}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category: Pro-life]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Tim Tebow

2012-01-11T20:22:33Z

KingHanksley:

[[File:Tim Tebow.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Timothy Richard Tebow''', known as '''Tim Tebow''' (born August 14, 1987), is an [[American]] [[football]] player who first gained fame while playing for the Florida Gators. He was the first sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]] and led the Gators to two [[BCS]] Championships during his four years playing for the [[University of Florida]] at Gainesville. He was selected by the [[Denver Broncos]] as the 25th pick of the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. In 2011, after his team was in last place, the Broncos decided to start Tebow as quarterback. As quarterback, Tebow had an impressive seven-game win streak and took the Broncos to the division championship and a home-game appearance in the playoffs. He then led them to an upset win over the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (headed by Hollywood-values quarterback [[Ben Roethlisberger]]) with 316 passing yards, confounding his critics. '''''Tebow is one of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] and was a runner-up for [[Conservative of the Year 2011]]'''''.

Tebow was [[homeschooled]] until college. He is an outspoken [[pro-lifer]], and his mother had been told to have an [[abortion]] rather than to give birth to him. Tebow appeared in a pro-life television ad that aired during the 2010 [[Super Bowl]], risking retaliation against his career by [[pro-aborts]] and the [[liberal media]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0127/Tim-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-an-astonishingly-bold-stand</ref>

Tebow gives frequent interviews to the liberal media and often leaves them speechless. He answered a highly personal question at a press conference about his sex life by revealing that he practices [[abstinence]]:<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090724&sportCat=ncf</ref>
{{cquote|I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question. ... I was ready for that question, but I don't think ya'll were.}}

Tebow volunteers on mission trips, one of which in the summer of 2008 to the [[Philippines]] was chronicled in an issue of the ''ESPN Magazine''.

==Personal life==

His faith in [[Christ]] is a well-known fact inside and outside the sports world.

== References ==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tebow, Tim}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category: Pro-life]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Satan

2011-12-16T20:43:09Z

KingHanksley: /* Terms */ - corrected "Seraphim" to singular "Seraph"

[[Image:GustaveDoreParadiseLostSatanProfile.jpg|right|thumb|Gustave Doré's depiction of Satan from John Milton's Paradise Lost.]]

'''Satan''' or the '''Devil''' is the embodiment of evil, and plays a major role in Christian theology and literature, as well as in many other religions. He is the tempter and spiritual enemy of mankind. He is the adversary of God, although subordinate to him and able to act only by his sufferance, and is represented frequently as the leader or prince of all apostate angels and as ruler of [[hell]].
"Satan is the force that loves to find the guilt and weakness in people, to humiliate them with it, to convince them that, because they are not good, God cannot love them."<ref> [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258360/iritei-stuff-satan-prosecutor-mike-potemra The Rite Stuff: Satan as Prosecutor] - Mike Potemra</ref>

==Old Testament==
Satan was once a member of the divine council of God referenced in the [[Old Testament]]. He is referenced 11 times in [[Job]] and 4 other times in the Old Testament. The [[New Testament]] mentions Satan 34 times in all, starting with the first book [[Matthew]] and ending with the last [[Revelation]]. In the Christian tradition he rebelled against God and is now the enemy of God and man alike. He is the father of lies and no good is found in him. He leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s) who know their days are numbered before they will be cast in the lake of fire and they seek to take as many humans as possible with them.

== New Testament==
In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails. Jesus warns extensively to beware of Satan as does [[Paul]].

In Christian theology Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). In the book of [[Genesis]], Satan takes the form of a snake and tempts Eve with fruit from a tree. This causes sin to come into the world. Kelly (2006) demonstrates how assumptions--such as the identification of the Eden serpent with Satan, probably first made by Justin Martyr in the second century--have hardened into fact.

Satan, in the Book of Job, listens to God speak highly of Job and accuses Job to God before the host of angels that Job praises God only because he is blessed and would curse God if he was forced to suffer. God allows Satan to do what he will except to spare his life, and Satan causes Job to suffer immensely. (Job remained true to God through his hardships; Satan accused him further and punished him further, but could not get Job to break).
==Possession==
[[Jesus]] makes references to demonic possession on multiple occasions that He then casts out. Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth even today. Even more, some others believe that Satan actually has done this in the past as well. The Catholic church believes that priests (and sometimes only bishops) are able to [[exorcise]] this possession through Jesus.

==Terms==
The word ''Satan'' derives from the Hebrew "ha-satan", meaning the "accuser", "tempter", "persecutor", "calumniator", or "adversary". He "was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44) Synonyms include '''Lucifer, demon, Mephistopholes, Mephisto, Beelzebub, the Evil One, the Tempter,''' and '''The Prince of Darkness.''' Only "devil" is used as an epithet for a profoundly evil person.

The adjectives include "devilish," "demonic", and "diabolic". Those who worship Satan are called [[satanism | Satanists]], Satan-worshippers, or demonists.
=== Lucifer ===
'''Lucifer''' is a name literally meaning "Son of the Morning" (or "Light-Bearer"), and is mentioned in the Bible only in the [[book of Isaiah]] (Isaiah 14:12). Though in Christian tradition Lucifer is equated with Satan, the immediate context of the passage is Isaiah's prophecy against the king of Babylon, and the name "Lucifer" was not present at all in the original manuscripts (in the Latin Vulgate, the phrase "Son of the Morning" was transliterated as a proper name).

Whomever Lucifer may be, the Isaiah makes strong prophecy against him, condemning him for 5 pronouncements:

* I will ascend into [[heaven]]
* I will exalt my throne above the stars of God
* I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
* I will ascend above the heights of the clouds
* I will be like the most High

Those who take this passage to be a reference to Satan believe that it gives more history of what caused his downfall, that he was created by God as one of His most powerful angels (possibly a [[Seraphim | Seraph]]), but that he fell from grace after he in his pride rebelled against his Creator. Some, however, believe that there is no grounding to interpret the passage as a history of Satan, citing that the passage uses highly figurative and poetic language that was meant as a prophecy against Babylon and nothing more.

[[Image:Paradise Lost 12.jpg|right|thumb|''The fall of Lucifer'' by Gustave Doré.]]

== Jewish Views ==
In the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who faithfully serves God as a prosecuting attorney - one who accuses men of wickedness and impiety. At the direction of God, Satan may be permitted to test these accusations, such as in Job. In this view, Satan's goal is not to lead men away from their faithfulness to God, but merely to reveal the true depths of their devotion, although in [[I Chronicles]] 21:1 Satan provoked [[David]] to take a [[census]] of the people of Israel against the will of God and 70,000 men are slain because of it.

==Jehovah's Witnesses==

[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] believe that Satan was at one time an [[Angel]] who lived among the many millions of Angels that existed before the [[world]] was created. They believe that at some point He developed the desire to be worshiped by [[Humans]] and other Angels and so set himself in Opposition to worship of [[Jehovah]], his [[God]] and Father. This they believe occured in the Garden of Eden, and not prior to the Earths creation. [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] teach that Satan used a serpent as his mouth piece, the same way a vantriloquist uses a dummy, to bring the first [[Human]] couple under his control.

[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] teach that God has allowed Satan to rule mankind for several resons such as:

*Satan has challenged God's Right to rule his creations, not his power....

*Satan accuses God of bribeing Humans for their loyalty with protection and blessings....

*Satan has accused Humans of being loyal to God out of selfish reasons....

*Satan claims that he can rule mankind better then God....

[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] teach also that [[God]] decided that time, rather then a display of force, is needed to settle these issues. This, they believe, has giving Satan thousands of years to prove that Mankind is better off without God, that He (Satan) can rule Mankind sucessfully, and that the Humans that Do serve God do so only out of selfish reasons.

[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] teach that Satan does not live in any kind of [[Hell]] or world of the dead, but on the [[Earth]] as it's current ruler, along with as many as a third of the Angels of [[Heaven]]. They teach that Satan had lived in Heaven up until 1914, when Jesus and his Angels cast him out of Heaven, bringing woe to the Earth. this is their reasoning on Why the world has experienced two World wars, increasing lawlessness, an increase in disease and polution, and the overall conditions on earth today.

[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] believe that Satan delegates authority to each Demon as he see's fit, and over what he see's fit, sometimes including whole Nations and kingdoms. They believe that Satan and his demons are in every way the enemy of God, rather then working along side him. They teach that Satan will continue to rule the world until [[Armageddon]], when Jesus Christ and his heavenly Angels come to earth and bind him, eventually killing him, freeing the world of all opposition towards True worship.

==Defenses==
The three classic defenses against Satan are:

* mockery, which Satan cannot withstand due to his pride
* sunlight or exposure, from which Satan hides
* the [[Holy Spirit]], meaning "The Advocate" (i.e., defense lawyer), or the ''Armor of God''<ref>Ephesians 6:1-17</ref>.

Note that Satan lacks self-restraint, which often leads him to failure. In addition, Satan delights in [[deceit]], even to the point of causing his downfall.

==Dante and Milton==
The classic literary depictions of Satan appear in Dante's Italian poem, "Inferno," and in [[John Milton]]'s English poem, "Paradise Lost." These are considered the two greatest poems in Italian and English literature.

==Liberal Protestant views==
Like [[Santa Claus]], Satan is not considered a real person but is the embodiment or epitome of evil.

In western art and popular culture the devil is used to represent evil influences or motivations.

==See also==
* [[Devil]]
*[[Atheism and satanic deception]]
* [[Salem Witch Trials]]

==Further reading==
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: I. In the Old Testament," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1913), pp. 29-33 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142352 in JSTOR]
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: II. Satan in Extra-Biblical Apocalyptical Literature," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 2 (Feb., 1913), pp. 98-102 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142425 in JSTOR]
* Caldwell, William. "The Doctrine of Satan: III. In the New Testament," ''The Biblical World,'' Vol. 41, No. 3 (Mar., 1913), pp. 167-172 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3142755 in JSTOR]
* Empson, William. ''Milton's God'' (1966)
* Jacobs, Joseph, and Ludwig Blau. "Satan," ''The Jewish Encyclopedia'' (1906) [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=Satan#ixzz0UQlw0zPS online] pp 68-71
* Kelly, Henry Ansgar. ''Satan: A Biography.'' (2006). 360 pp. [http://books.google.com/books?id=gPIpQg0lRbMC&pg=PA12&dq=intitle:satan+inauthor:kelly&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpt and text search]ISBN 0-521-60402-8, a study of the Bible and Western literature
* Kent, William. "Devil." ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) Vol. 4. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm online older article]
* Osborne, B. A. E. "Peter: Stumbling-Block and Satan," ''Novum Testamentum,'' Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 187-190 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560340 in JSTOR] on "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
* Rebhorn Wayne A. "The Humanist Tradition and Milton's Satan: The Conservative as Revolutionary," ''Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900,'' Vol. 13, No. 1, The English Renaissance (Winter, 1973), pp. 81-93 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/449871 in JSTOR]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Perceptions-Antiquity-Christianity-Paperbacks/dp/0801494095/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Satan: The Early Christian Tradition'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Christian-Jeffrey-Burton-Russell/dp/0801494133/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages'' (1986) [http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Devil-Middle-Cornell-Paperbacks/dp/080149429X/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World'' (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Mephistopheles-Modern-Jeffrey-Burton-Russell/dp/0801497183/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c excerpt and text search]
* Russell, Jeffrey Burton. ''The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Darkness-Radical-Power-History/dp/0801480566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255995689&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schaff, D. S. "Devil" in ''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), [[Mainline]] Protestant; vol 3 pp 414-417 [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.d.iii.html online]
* Scott, Miriam Van. ''The Encyclopedia of Hell'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Hell-Miriam-Van-Scott/dp/0312244428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search] comparative religions; also popular culture
* Wray, T. J. and Gregory Mobley. ''The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Satan-Tracing-Devils-Biblical/dp/1403969337/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

== Notes ==
<references/>

== External links ==

*[http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/teach/accuser.html The accuser of the brethren - commentary on Revelation 12:7-12] - Dr. J.B. Buffington
[[category:Abrahamic Religions]]
{{DivineComedy}}

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2011-12-15T20:20:44Z

KingHanksley: /* No Liberal Friends? */

==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)

== No Liberal Friends? ==

I was wondering, do most of you have no liberal friends? Several of my friends have been liberals, who I met at work (health care, then in retail), or through pasttimes (football, stand up comedy). I really appreciate their friendship, and for the most part we don't talk politics or religion(or drugs, or sex), but we can get along for the duration of the job we're doing or while watching a football gaming or taking part in the same comedy show (and my stand-up makes fun of Obama, Pelosi, and Hollywood values pretty often), or even talking afterwards. Now, that said, every one of my liberal friends has at least one friend (and often several) that I can't associate with and that fits all the stereotypes mentioned in this article. I know the type, believe me, and luckily I have enough education and experience that I can more than hold my own when they attack capitalism or religion or conservative lifestyles. But my friends also will take my side, not because they agree with me but because they respect me. I just don't think this article is true in my experience. I don't disqualify anyone from being my friend, unless they disqualify themselves with their behavior toward me or to their fellow man. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:20, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2011-12-15T20:20:31Z

KingHanksley: /* No Liberal Friends? */ new section

==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)

== No Liberal Friends? ==

I was wondering, do most of you have no liberal friends? Several of my friends have been liberals, who I met at work (health care, then in retail), or through pasttimes (football, stand up comedy). I really appreciate their friendship, and for the most part we don't talk politics or religion(or drugs, or sex), but we can get along for the duration of the job we're doing or while watching a football gaming or taking part in the same comedy show (and my stand-up makes fun of Obama, Pelosi, and Hollywood values pretty often), or even talking afterwards. Now, that said, every one of my liberal friends has at least one friend (and often several) that I can't associate with and that fits all the stereotypes mentioned in this article. I know the type, believe me, and luckily I have enough education and experience that I can more than hold my own when they attack capitalism or religion or conservative lifestyles. But my friends also will take my side, not because they agree with me but because they respect me. I just don't think this article is true in my experience. Or maybe I don't know what a liberal is. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:19, 15 December 2011 (EST)

== No Liberal Friends? ==

I was wondering, do most of you have no liberal friends? Several of my friends have been liberals, who I met at work (health care, then in retail), or through pasttimes (football, stand up comedy). I really appreciate their friendship, and for the most part we don't talk politics or religion(or drugs, or sex), but we can get along for the duration of the job we're doing or while watching a football gaming or taking part in the same comedy show (and my stand-up makes fun of Obama, Pelosi, and Hollywood values pretty often), or even talking afterwards. Now, that said, every one of my liberal friends has at least one friend (and often several) that I can't associate with and that fits all the stereotypes mentioned in this article. I know the type, believe me, and luckily I have enough education and experience that I can more than hold my own when they attack capitalism or religion or conservative lifestyles. But my friends also will take my side, not because they agree with me but because they respect me. I just don't think this article is true in my experience. I don't disqualify anyone from being my friend, unless they disqualify themselves with their behavior toward me or to their fellow man. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:20, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2011-12-15T20:19:06Z

KingHanksley: /* No Liberal Friends? */ new section

==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)

== No Liberal Friends? ==

I was wondering, do most of you have no liberal friends? Several of my friends have been liberals, who I met at work (health care, then in retail), or through pasttimes (football, stand up comedy). I really appreciate their friendship, and for the most part we don't talk politics or religion(or drugs, or sex), but we can get along for the duration of the job we're doing or while watching a football gaming or taking part in the same comedy show (and my stand-up makes fun of Obama, Pelosi, and Hollywood values pretty often), or even talking afterwards. Now, that said, every one of my liberal friends has at least one friend (and often several) that I can't associate with and that fits all the stereotypes mentioned in this article. I know the type, believe me, and luckily I have enough education and experience that I can more than hold my own when they attack capitalism or religion or conservative lifestyles. But my friends also will take my side, not because they agree with me but because they respect me. I just don't think this article is true in my experience. Or maybe I don't know what a liberal is. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:19, 15 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-12-14T21:06:32Z

KingHanksley: /* Obesity article */

Those are some very interesting poll findings! I have not seen those reported or discussed ANYWHERE in the media, thanks for getting them out there. Hopefully many people will now realize the dangers of choosing an atheistic lifestyle. PS I really enjoy the satires based on these findings. There very funny but also deliver a very serious message.

What's with this article? I'm an atheist, I'm 5' 9", 160 pounds, I bike to school almost every day, I eat healthy food, I hike, I work out from time to time and I know at least a couple of other atheist (I don't know many people all together) who have similar life styles. What gives? [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. '''Thousands''' identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW
I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:11, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::You are '''proposing''' a major change to this article and challenging basic scientific findings. Where are your sources?--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 11:05, 2 January 2011 (EST)
:::::I would also like to point out that I live in a predominately atheist area and very few people I know are overweight. I don't doubt that atheism is a worse lifestyle choice - I just don't see that it has any correlation to obesity. Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem attacks on a few overweight famous atheists is going to convince anyone, and it also seems horribly unprofessional. [[User:RkWilko|RkWilko]] 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::::There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::RkWilko, Gallup's study takes into account geographic to create a more [[ceteris paribus]] study in terms of what they studied. Do you have a ceteris paribus like study concerning atheism and obesity? Also, did you see the pictures of the [[American Atheists]] board of directors? What are your thoughts about how fat or thin they are generally speaking? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:15, 8 January 2011 (EST)

This section: "While all atheists are non-religious..." is provided without citation. It's pretty obvious why it has no citation. It's false. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists and Humanists, for example.

Furthermore, providing a few examples of overweight atheists does nothing to prove the article's truth. That's just bad inductive reasoning. If I were to show a few skinny Hindus, would that prove that most Hindus are thin? Of course not.

Given Conservapedia's dedication to providing information that is as accurate as possible, I'm sure that someone in control of this article will make the necessary corrections. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Tylero|Tylero]] 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)
::::Fixed. I wrote: While many [[Western World|Western]] atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. I did this to avoid the contentious debate on whether Western atheism is a religion. I believe it can be easily argued that Western atheism is a religion and that is probably going to be incorporated in the atheism article at a future date. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 7 January 2011 (EST)

== The elephant in the room ==

Until the atheist community practices more of what [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] recommends to do in order to have a healthy lifestyle, the issue of [[atheism and obesity]] will continue to be the elephant in the room. [[Shockofgod]] is entirely correct - [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|atheism is madness]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)

:You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much for being brave enough to publish the link between atheism and obesity - I've not seen it mentioned in the lamestream media or on liberal sites. In fact I tried to add such to the article but was reverted for not having a cite for it, do you have a good cite that shows a lack of MSM coverage of the link between atheism and obesity please? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:27, 11 January 2011 (EST)
::::The MSM is losing market share as a whole and the internet is taking away their market share. Feel free to spread the word about atheism and obesity far and wide and with great alacrity across the internet and in your community as I think the slow moving overweight and obese atheist community will not be able to effectively compete with you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Wow! ==

I just read through nearly half of this article and fact-checked every claim it made, and there wasn't so much as one single error. To whoever the authors are, this is quite the article!--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 18:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery ==

Picture of overweight Daniel Dennett: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

== Stephen Fry ==
Hey, reading through this article I see many people have been mentioned, but I feel it is a bit unfair to mention Stephen Fry. To his credit he has lost a lot of weight recently, as illustrated here: [http://www.globalgranary.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172&d=1296818872] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
: As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1217335/Has-Stephen-Fry-gone-far-Actor-shows-amazing-stone-weight-loss.html] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 18:07, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks. I just added this to the article: "In 2009, the Mail Online reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again". However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== video of Michael Nugent ==

The overweight atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is. Accordingly, I used slimmer looking video of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent that does not make him look more overweight than he actually is.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern University study ==

Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and obesity]] article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like [[atheism and obesity|some of the modern apostles of atheism]] such as [[PZ Myers]]. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist [http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/01/blag-hag-those-fatty-mcfat-fat-atheists.html "blag hag"], I would remind you that [[atheism and obesity|most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin]] plus the Gallup study used [[generalized linear model]] analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing [[atheism and obesity|the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth]] if you were an [[PZ Myers|overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight]], but please do not do it here. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm style over substance fallacy] to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Atheism is madness!]] Evolutionism [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution.2C_Liberalism.2C_Atheism.2C_and_Irrationality is madness as well]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if Conservapedia mentions various facts about atheism and matters relating to atheism, however. The Conservapedia atheism article certainly does not say the atheist community has some problems with obesity, therefore atheism is not valid. I would suggest reading the atheism article a few more times if you have reading comprehension difficulties. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:46, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire|some humor associated with atheism and obesity]], the existence of various atheists ignoring [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] and engaging in [[gluttony]] does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true]]. Christendom has certainly provided [[Christian apologetics|a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity]] despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Your form? Come off it. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::DGibbs, For a person who supposedly has no personal interest in atheism, you sure do sound very much like an atheist. I am certainly not convinced of your sincerity at this point.
Conservative, I have read your article [[Atheism and obesity]] as well as the [http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx Gallup study] which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.

The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at [http://www.well-beingindex.com/methodology.asp Gallup's methodology] you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.

Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been ''more'' healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.

You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: ''The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.'' It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see any valid objections to [[atheism and obesity|the atheism and obesity entry]] in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.

:As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on ''which'' brand of cigarette someone smokes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] and not address [[Atheism and obesity|the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided]]. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm slothful induction] fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, [[Atheist Population|there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians.]] :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" ([http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4004069_f520.jpg some of whom are obese] and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics?

I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! [[User:MichaelOL|MichaelOL]] 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145 Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:If anyone wants to contact this science editor http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern U study new data ==

Here is what I read before:

"But researchers have also found signs that people who attend services put on more weight. In the new study, which will be released Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in Atlanta, researchers sought to follow people over time to see what happened to them. They examined a previous long-term study that tracked 2,433 people who were aged 20 to 32 in the mid-1980s.

'''Most of the participants were women, and 41 percent were black.'''

After adjusting their statistics to take into account factors such as race, the researchers found that 32 percent of those who attended services the most became obese by middle age, Feinstein said.

Whatever the case, he said, the study points to the role that '''places of worship could play in reducing obesity.'''

"They can become part of the solution," explained Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago, perhaps by increasing awareness of obesity and holding health fairs.

'''"Pastors, especially those in poor neighborhoods, could champion programs for more fresh produce and less fast food in their neighborhoods," Sulmasy added.'''[http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145]

'''<big>It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:</big>'''

The study tracked 2,433 young men and women for 18 years in '''Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Ala., and Oakland, Calif.'''

In the study, “frequent” religious participation meant attending at least one event per week. Most, but not all of the participants, were Christians — reflecting the dominant religion in the United States, Feinstein said.

'''Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn,''' said he’s not entirely surprised by the study’s results. Parker suspects there may be a historical connection between over-eating and going to church. In years gone by, so many things were taboo — but not eating, Parker said.

Years ago, “church services ran long,” Parker said. “So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.”

'''Parker said Apostolic has made a point in recent years of serving healthy food at church events. So you’re more likely to see baked fish or chicken, rather than pizza, on the menu'''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html] - cited from Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2011

Of course, what I wrote above still applies:

Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Additional content==
While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:As the East gains more access to process food via global markets and gains in prosperity, obesity is spreading to the East as can be seen in this report on India.[http://hindu.com./2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: [[Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers|Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Relation to obesity ==

Can we get a study that directly relates to obesity? These seem to be generalized studies about health practices without any physical data. A proper study should confirm the results, but it would be better to use an obesity-specific study or at least one with obesity-specific conclusions than to use this one and make assumptions about obesity.

I'm also not that comfortable with these more questionable anti-atheism arguments because they trivialize the importance of religion. It's trivial whether you look good or lose a few inches off your belly, it's much more important how you define yourself as a member of this world and the next. I know lots of slightly pudgy Christians (while I'm not obese, I could lose a few pounds) who are nonetheless more spiritually healthy than all the skinny atheists out there.

Make fun of me all you want, but I would like to see less of this kind of article and more on the matters of substance.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article offers a lot of data and studies plus over 130 footnotes with relevant information. Some individuals, such as PZ Myers, don't appreciate being a data point and poster boy. :) Second, faith without works is dead and the Bible says by your fruits you shall know them. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit empowers people to have more self-discipline and that gluttony is a sin. The Gallup study and the world wide population of Christendom is very favorable to Christianity as far as health practices/slimness especially when you compare it to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#American_Atheists_organization American Atheists board of directors] and [[New Atheism leadership and problems with being overweight|the make up of the New Atheism leadership]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::But let's be realistic. This is just anecdotal evidence (obese individuals out of millions nationwide) and one study that, while large in sample size, isn't about obesity. The reason obesity is chosen is because it's a) funny and b) reverses a stigma that liberals like to attach to conservatives. I get it. But the case is weak. It's quality of evidence, not quantity. This is the kind of thinking I see in the most foolish of liberal college students and is too childish for us to engage in. We are better than that. We should strive to be.
:::::To say that all overweight people are gluttons (or sloths) is a generalization. Some hard-working Christians eat just to relieve hunger, but find our bodies change as we grow older and do less work on our feet. Do you not see any hefty people with your church, or among your neighbors? When I do, I do not assume they are bad Christians. And I do not assume that atheists are flawed in any way besides their lack of faith and morals. The Bible has a lot to say about talebearing too.
::::Back to the topic at hand - if the hard evidence is there, let us find it. This Gallup study is not about obesity and the anecdotal evidence is meaningless (just as libs try to use anecdotal evidence to attack Christians and Republicans).
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article merely gives evidence relating to atheism and obesity/being overweight. Although some atheists on the internet have tried to deny that I cited instances of overweight and/or obese atheists, such denialism was unwarranted. The article does not say the extent of the problem of obesity within the atheist community. It also gives data relating to the very religious and health practices, obesity, health practices of various populations, and related matters (Mayo Clinic data). The reason why the article gets under some atheists' skin (particularly those whose skin are on the thicker side), is that atheism is all about denialism (such as denying the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for Christianity]], [[atheism and mass murder]], etc.). The evidence I did present was accurate and had some relevancy. People can make their own conclusions based on the accurate and relevant data I presented concerning the extent of the obesity problem within the atheist community. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, Jesus said, "Be ye perfect...". Unlike [[PZ Myers]], Jesus was perfect and had no problems with being overweight. Jesus was a carpenter. Perhaps, PZ Myers should consider getting into carpentry and spend less time pursuing sedentary activities such a blogging about atheist nonsense. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obese atheists wax museum ==

::::I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

What would the entrance fee be? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Pretty steep to cover the amount of wax that would have to be used. For example, if I had an "Overweight and obese atheists wax museum", take a look at the amount of wax that would have to be used [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== My intentions. ==

This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you ''as a person'', conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we '''know''' are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people ''indescriminate'' of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this picture] a picture of someone slightly overweight? Next, how do you know that different worldviews affect rates of obesity equally? For example, the very religious, the moderately religious, the irreligious and atheists? Next, I realize that certainly people may crave intellectual victories because they: always lose in chess/Go/Othello/Risk/Monopoly; always lose their debates with spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and in-laws; always come up on the short end of the stick in negotiations; are in intellectually unfulfilling occupations; have trouble figuring out how their computers and remote controls work; can't figure out how to get their dog to listen to them, etc. Yet, I am very content creating descriptive article content. Now it is true that I have posted some material on non-article pages such as my User page/talk pages/satire/essay pages, etc. which alluded to/mentioned victory/defeat in a good-natured/humorous manner (exultant matador, wildfires, etc.) which some people enjoyed. Yet, after all is said an done, in articles I present meaningful information concerning a matter and endeavor to do so in a relevant manner. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
::I am not sure how to respond as you veer pretty far off topic. The Gallup survey cited does not mention atheism and there is no correlation as far as I can see. As stated above half the US population is overweight yet only about 9% are atheist so the numbers don't match. Atheism has many failings but being more prone to obesity isn't one of them and making snide attacks towards PZ Myers, for example, does not advance our cause. I don't really want this to be a debate. I will create my own essay (might take me awhile though as it is rare I get much time to write such things) and you may respond on it's talkpage when complete. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't think anywhere near 9% of Americans are atheists and use this large survey to support this matter: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf I don't have an inclination to discuss the atheists/obesity matter further with you given your previous posts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The survey you linked to says that 12% of Americans are atheists, so I don't think it exactly supports you. As it happens 12% ties in with the figure of 13% that I've seen in several other places and I have to say it seems credible. Atheism IS gaining ground in the USA, although it's nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe yet, which makes it all the more important that Conservapedia becomes a high-quality educational resource. No offence, but given the effort that's been put into pointless themes like obesity and atheism (which, even if true, proves exactly nothing about the validity of atheism) what could those man-hours have achieved if directed towards creating good, solid articles on scientific or social issues? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:04, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hi Sam, I gave up my intentions in trying to help Conservative with this. This entire article is predicated on a survey that doesn't mention either Obesity nor Atheism. Despite bringing this up numerous times Conservative has yet to address this problem and has made it abundantly clear that trying to discuss anything with him only leads to one being insulted, accusesations of not being a Christian followed by having to wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of non-sequiters. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:10, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

==My suggestions==
I think that two more points bear mentioning in the article. First, since recent studies show a correlation between rate of religious attendance and obesity, links to such studies would provide strong evidence in favor of the atheism-obesity link. Second, while the article mentions lesbianism and obesity, the male homosexual culture of personal irresponsibility would lead male homosexuals to a similar level of disregard for their physical fitness. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:39, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually in my experience male homosexuals take extreme care about their appearance, far more so than most heterosexual men do whether Christian or not. I'd say that a good 25% of the men who go to my gym are openly gay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::DavidE, we covered the recent study you referred to. See above. Second, if you want to make a claim, please advance data to support it. Don't plan on checking this talk page very often. Saw your post to recent changes though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Correction ==

Hi, this is my first edit. I am an East Asian Languages and Cultures major. I just read "[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]" and noticed a mistake. The essay has two pictures of what is supposed to be Siddhartha Guatama. The picture of the chunky fellow is actually Budai, who is, according to Buddhist lore, an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha. Maitreya and Guatama are two different deities. Guatama is always portrayed in art as either skinny or broad shouldered and muscular. The mis-identification needs to be corrected. Although a satire, the essay makes a good point, so I think even small things like captions on pictures should be accurate. --[[User:Jimmyray|Jimmyray]] 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== a reply from penn jillette ==

:I just watched [http://revision3.com/pennpoint/fat_atheists this video]. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, here is my response: [[Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette]] Here is my favorite line from the essay: "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:12, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

:You've missed equating us fat people with fluffy kitten haters though, so I guess I should be grateful. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:51, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, everyone makes mistakes in their lives. In many cases, it is the result of making bad choices. The common sense things Mr. Norris says about being overweight [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity|HERE]] are true. There is a reason why people in Asia are far thinner than Americans and many European countries. They make better choices when it comes to diet and exercise. I realize that some people have thyroid problems or other medical issues, but in most cases it comes down to diet and exercise. People in Asia eat healthier food and exercise more and I provided a responsible citation from the medical literature in this article indicating that Asians eat healthier food. In the majority of cases, being overweight is very fixable and I did provide the solutions to being overweight in the external link section of this article and I cited responsible sources such as the [[Mayo Clinic]] and WebMD.

As far as your charge that I have not equated overweight people with kitten haters, I would simply point out that you really can't show me anything in this article I wrote that is untrue/unreasonable. I guess you can claim that overweight people are largely that way because of their genes. However, I don't buy it. Here is why: http://blog.awpainrelief.com/health-issues-childhood-obesity/ Even Polynesian people who are more disposed to obesity did fine before they changed their dietary habits. Lastly, I am certainly not going to play online doctor and diagnose anyone's particular health issues so if you have health issues relating to being overweight, I will let you work out things with your physician. I really have no animosity towards you and hope the best for you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obesity article ==

1) Does the fact the talk page for the [[obesity]] article redirects here mean '''CP's official position''' is that '''all fat people are atheists'''? If not, please remove the redirect and allow comments on that page.

2) If the purpose of the obesity article is not to label '''all''' fat people as atheists, or lesbians, or liberals, please show some concern for the people struggling with this issue (obesity, not atheism, homosexuality or liberalism) by adding the different treatments available to reduce weight, including gastric bypass surgery, medication and counseling. Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Nutrisystem are just a few popular programs.

Because in reality, the majority of fat people are ''not'' evil.
Thank you, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:I find this whole thing confusing. Obesity is rampant in the United States but Conservative also likes to claim that atheists are a mere squeak of the US population. Ergo, many religious people are obese also and the fattest states are also the most religious. None of it really makes any sense to me. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, please consider learning more about the [[Generalized linear model]] and multi-variable statistical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll do that if you learn more about obesity and it's relation to atheism (hint: there is no relation). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the removal of the redirect. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==This material is offensive==
This material is offensive and does nothing to bring people in need to Christ. "''It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth"''" (Matt 15:11) and it is the ridicule coming out of the mouth of the author that defiles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:08, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I notice you didn't point out any factual errors in the article and I am not going to censor factual information for you. I see no reason to cave in to an egotistical blowhard who is merely seeking payback. I also don't believe you know your Bible well. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%204&version=NASB Amos 4:1 - Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria] Biblical commentary on Amos 4: "You cows of Bashan: Amos wasn’t trained as a prophet, he was a simple herdsman and farmer. When he wanted to get the point across to the indulgent women of Israel, he called them fat cows."[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/3004.htm] Titus 1:12: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." If you think I am going to let a egotist suck up my time for no good reason, think again. By the way, it is funny and awfully convenient that you suddenly find the material to be offensive now. Please grow up. You wonder why I don't want to communicate with you. It is undisciplined and petty outbursts like this that is one of the prime reasons. I have zero trust in your integrity. I also think you have little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes your fancy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is nonsense. What evidence is there the "the indulgent women of Israel" were Atheists? And please refrain from incivility and personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:54, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A factual error has been pointed out many times over, by me as well as others. The study does not mention atheists nor does the study mention obesity - there is no factual connection between Atheism and Obesity. That is an error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::How did I misrepresent a study. I didn't. If you are going to post on the talk page, please post something worthwhile. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Hasn't Mr. Schlafly addressed this before and said that the link between atheism and obesity should not be censored? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:10, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: Rob mentioned this material as being "offensive". What's offensive about a fact? And why say that unless you want to censor? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, this isn't rocket science. I provided commentary on the Gallup study in the article. You either need to read better, express yourself better or be more honest. I hope it's not the latter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All the study says is that more religious people choose healthier diets. There is nothing about Atheism nor Obesity in the study. You leapt to that conclusion on your own and it is factually unsupported by the study. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::RobS, grow up. I merely pointed out above that the Bible does talk about obesity/gluttony in populations. I think the more you hang out with atheist buddies and try to court them with this type of bootlicking to curry their favor, the more you are going to find facts to be offensive. I am going to have to agree with BradleyS's comment above. I also continue to believe your timing is awfully convenient in terms of your petulant complaint and this is merely a petty and spurious attempt at payback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::*''The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a [[gluttony|glutton]], and a winebibber, a friend of publicans<ref>publicans were [[collaborator]]s with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.</ref> and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.'' (Matt 11:19) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
{{reflist}}
RobS, I know you are spoiling for fight with me at this time, but I am not going to cooperate and be drawn into senseless contention. I also suggest if you truly want to make some positive changes to Conservapedia that you engage in less factious and unwarranted behavior. Based on recent communications to me, you are going to find it much more difficult to gain the cooperation of your fellow Conservapedians if you continue down your present path. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

:You know, you don't have to respond to every post you're name is mentioned. See [[Last wordism]]. Also, please do not presume to telepathically understand other's motives, or impugn other's motives with your imagination. It can be misconstrued as incivility. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::What "senseless contention" are you referring to? It's certainly not people calling to your attention the several unsupported arguments you make in these hitpieces. You've failed to carry your burden that there's even a correlation between atheism and obesity, yet you continue hectoring and sneering at these people. Why is that? That's not what I would call openmindedness or cooperation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
===factual===
:User:conservative you keep insisting that this material is factual and ignoring what everybody else is saying about it. But whether or not it's "factual" isn't the point, and it's rather disingenuous of you to keep insisting that it is.
:Do you make fun of the handicapped? Because it would be "factual," wouldn't it, to call a person with disabilities a cripple. Lots of things are factual, but here people are expressing concern over your apparent need to mock and degrade. What is it that you are trying to prove with these "facts?" You do know that there are overweight Christians and physically fit atheists, don't you? It seems to everybody that you are only pointing and saying "HaHa! You're fat."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::CamilleT, if you feel strongly about this matter, I think you should contact your elected representatives and ask them to include being overweight as a disability. Perhaps, you could get some equal access laws passed too requiring: extra wide doorways, extra wide seating in all public transit and heavy duty shock absorbers installed in all taxis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I not sure why I'm trying again, but come on, Conservative. What exactly is your goal behind these articles where you're equating fat people with atheists and gays and I can't remember what else? These article don't appear to express any true concern about overweight people and our very real issues; instead, it appears as though we're just convenient whipping boys. We're one of the few remaining subgroups in society that are considered fair game without our denigrators becoming social pariahs. Your writings reflect many of the typical attitudes people display toward fat people - we're supposed to accept any and all insults, fat jokes and negative stereotypes because I guess it's assumed we're not "real" people with "real" feelings. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::The article provides data relating to atheism and obesity and related matters. It also provides some helpful information. I don't see the point of repeating myself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are wasting your time Sharon. Conservative has shown himself to be entirely impervious to either logical argument or to any appeal to civility or empathy. He is determined to plough ahead with these disgraceful articles which bring this site into disrepute. In spite of his name he is clearly no real conservative. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:07, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Charles, as far as your empathy comment, have you read Conservapedia's article [[Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] articles? [[Atheist Population|Atheists as a population]] are not known for their empathy. Perhaps, if some atheists weren't so busy engaging in their costly habit of [[gluttony]], they would have more money to donate to others. Plus, the greater the aggregate world demand for food, the higher the price of food so [[Atheism and obesity|obese atheists]] are not making things easy for people having difficulty with rising food prices. Now I realize there are people with legitimate medical reasons for being overweight such a thyroid problems, but I have to agree with this article as a whole: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::So... because atheists are not empathetic it is ok for your not to be empathetic? Hmm. I think you had better re-examine your "conservative" values. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that your Gallup poll does not mention either atheists or obesity. On every occasion you have utterly failed to explain how your article is supported by that poll. I suggest that you consider removing your atheist/fatties "articles". Finally, I really don't care what Chuck Norris has to say on any topic outside of acting. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have mentioned many times over Conservative, '''there is no mention of atheism or obesity in the gallup study'''. It is an error you have yet to address aside from deflection. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Interesting. I had not bothered to question the actual data, rather its presentation and its implications, but with this it seems User:conservative is wrong on every single level. Go on, deflect away, conservative.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Whining, kvetching and pretending will not make the Gallup study cease to mention the very religious nor will it remove the non-Gallup data I offered. As far as the Gallup data and the non-religious and its relevance, each person has to decide for themselves how similar non-religious people are to atheists in terms of health habits unless there is data I am not aware of that compares the two. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9ZleOXzQ0 This song] reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. Walk me and everyone who thinks you're dead wrong though this. Apparently none of us is as good a reader as you are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I presented 25 written pages of data and content relating to atheism and obesity. I am very content to let readers decide its relevance. Please feel free to offer more prominent overweight atheist to be included. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study '''does not''' support the conclusion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I am thinking of adding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZDs88uWKrk&feature=relmfu HappyCabbie] as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::If someone is looking for a list of overweight atheists on the internet this article is easily found.[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+overweight+atheists&pbx=1&oq=list+of+overweight+atheists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2887l12923l0l13407l29l24l1l8l8l0l350l3232l0.11.5.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1024&bih=514][http://www.bing.com/search?q=list+of+overweight+atheists&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI][http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=list+of+overweight+atheists&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand Conservative, you have never answered the most basic of questions and I am rather bewildered. The Gallup study never mentions atheism or obesity and obesity affects nearly half of all US citizens yet you yourself state atheist are in the extreme minority (1.9% if I remember correctly). Please help me understand where you are drawing your conclusions from. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::So, all your information comes from a few online atheists? Without statistics, you have nothing. Should I add that I, who does not believe in any deities or supernatural forces, am not fat? Where does that leave your careful analysis? Or are you just cherry picking? Because I can name overweight Christians pretty easily too (off the top of my head: Bill Donahue, John Hagee and his son; Jack Chick is pretty burly looking; various self-professed Christians not involved in preaching such as Joe Barton, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the late Jerry Fallwell).--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
"Conservative", answer two simple and direct questions simply and directly. No more of your deflection. Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. I'll give you a hint, and this time I'm flat out calling you a liar if you give another ridiculous non-response: it's not in there. Your campaign to slander your opponents however childishly and dishonestly you can is casting this website in disrepute. For one of the few times in a year I did a google search for Conservapedia and specifically the rubbish you call articles. You in particular get overwhelmingly negative attention, even from Christians and conservatives. Please desist before you bring more shame to our doorstep. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

This page is guilty of a major logical fallacy, that is, the ad hominem abusive [http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem_abusive]. If you don't wish to follow the link and read up, it basically means that pointing out some negative aspect of a person or group that holds a particular belief does not change the truth or falsehood of that belief, as long as the negative aspect is unrelated to the issue at stake. The belief must stand or fall on its own. Even assuming EVERY atheist is obese, this has no impact on the veracity of their belief. It is pointed out that atheists are obese because they ignore nutritive science. However, nutritive science and theology are utterly separate fields - one's adherence or non adherence to nutritive science has no bearing on one's belief in the existence or non existence of God (or a god) --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 08:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::I have never seen the fallacy described as applying to a group. I think you are changing the definition of this fallacy. Second, the article doesn't claim that the existence of overweight atheists means that God exists. If it had, you would certainly have pointed that out. The issue of a segment of the atheist community ignoring nutritional science, exercise science and medical science seems to upset you. By the way, if memory serves, if you had read the talk page more carefully, I believe this issue was already covered. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I believe the amount of atheist obesity in many societies will decrease as there will be less atheists. I suggest reading: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

The Crucible

2011-12-14T21:00:46Z

KingHanksley:

'''The Crucible''' (1953), written by [[leftist]] [[atheist]] playwright [[Arthur Miller]], is an attack on American [[Christianity]] and the fight against the [[communism]]. It is a fictionalized portrayal of the [[Salem Witch Trials]] and serves as an allegorical attack to the [[anti-communist]] agenda of Republican Senator [[Joseph McCarthy]]. <ref name=Miller>See [[Arthur Miller]]'s ''Why I Wrote "The Crucible"'' in [http://www.dlackey.org/weblog/docs/Why%20I%20Wrote%20the%20Crucible.pdf Life & Letters], The New Yorker, Issue Date 1996-10-21</ref>. The plot follows the protagonist John Proctor (a devout Christian, though unable to recite the Ten Commandments<ref>http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/avhsweb/hartman/IntermediateDrama/TheCrucible.htm</ref>, but this may be due to his previous adulterous affair with Abigail Williams, a hysterical primary accuser) and his wife Elizabeth Proctor, along with several other members of the community, as they are systematically prosecuted for witchcraft.

Although Miller's targets may have been conservative, the kind of behavior he attacks is also exhibited by liberals, especially those quick to condemn people for [[politically incorrect]] statements.

==References==
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name=Miller>See [[Arthur Miller]]'s ''"Why I Wrote "The Crucible"'' in [http://www.dlackey.org/weblog/docs/Why%20I%20Wrote%20the%20Crucible.pdf Life & Letters], The New Yorker, Issue Date 1996-10-21</ref>
}}

[[Category:Plays]]

Talk:The Crucible

2011-12-14T20:59:00Z

KingHanksley:

==Attack on Christianity==

Perhaps a cite should be added to bolster this claim. I think that the play speaks to a lot more than simply an attack on Christianity, but given that this point is important a cite would be good. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 18:17, 24 September 2010 (EDT)

I agree, I did not find my Christian beliefs threatened by the play, and thought it actually spoke a lot more to the danger of false prophets and those who see religion as a source of political power rather than true moral strength. A lot of atheists wrongly cheer the play as a condemnation of Christianity but it's about human behavior; and look at some of the left-wing witch hunts of today when people speak their mind a little too bluntly. This can teach a good lesson about fervent political correctness, no? [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:58, 14 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:The Crucible

2011-12-14T20:58:43Z

KingHanksley:

==Attack on Christianity==

Perhaps a cite should be added to bolster this claim. I think that the play speaks to a lot more than simply an attack on Christianity, but given that this point is important a cite would be good. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 18:17, 24 September 2010 (EDT)

I agree, I did not find my Christian beliefs threatened by the play, and thought it actually spoke a lot more to the danger of false prophets and those who see religion as a source of political power rather than personal strength. A lot of atheists wrongly cheer the play as a condemnation of Christianity but it's about human behavior; and look at some of the left-wing witch hunts of today when people speak their mind a little too bluntly. This can teach a good lesson about fervent political correctness, no? [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:58, 14 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Ted Williams

2011-12-14T20:52:12Z

KingHanksley: Created page with "I really like the quote "God gets you to the plate, but once you're there you're on your own." It's a balanced view of how the Lord helps athletes - giving you natural talent and..."

I really like the quote "God gets you to the plate, but once you're there you're on your own." It's a balanced view of how the Lord helps athletes - giving you natural talent and the opportunity for life, and perhaps some personal guidance, but God is not invested in the results of games. A great player, dedicated serviceman, and clearly an insightful individual.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:52, 14 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2011-05-25T04:57:54Z

KingHanksley: /* "The Gays" */

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

=="The Gays"==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2011-05-25T04:56:45Z

KingHanksley: /* "The Gays" */

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

=="The Gays"==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

User talk:KingHanksley

2011-05-19T03:47:35Z

KingHanksley:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:33, 3 May 2011 (EDT)}}

== Larry Sanders ==

Judging by your username I'm assuming you're a fan? [[User:EdwardCook|EdwardCook]] 23:04, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 23:44, 18 May 2011 (EDT)Ah yes, you're the first to mention it. It's also close to my own given name (Hank Kingsley is, not King Hanksley). But yes, Sanders is a great show. Such a good combination of truth and comedy, and it's surprising how deeply (and refreshingly) critical of Hollywood for a show with so many celebrity guests. I can't stand Entourage (which my cousins watch), which just seems to celebrate that whole mindset, but Larry Sanders is a deeper show and one of my favorites. And Hank is an amazing character, although I am not much like him or so I like to believe. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 23:44, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

User talk:KingHanksley

2011-05-19T03:44:55Z

KingHanksley: /* Larry Sanders */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:33, 3 May 2011 (EDT)}}

== Larry Sanders ==

Judging by your username I'm assuming you're a fan? [[User:EdwardCook|EdwardCook]] 23:04, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 23:44, 18 May 2011 (EDT)Ah yes, you're the first to mention it. It's also close to my own given name (Hank Kingsley is, not King Hanksley). But yes, Sanders is a great show. Such a good combination of truth and comedy, and it's surprising how deeply (and refreshingly) critical of Hollywood for a show with so many celebrity guests. I can't stand Entourage (which my cousins watch), which just seems to celebrate that whole mindset, but Larry Sanders is a deeper show and one of my favorites. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 23:44, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?

2011-05-13T17:16:23Z

KingHanksley: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Yes, Osama bin Laden was killed during a raid that occurred on May 1, 2011 in Abottabad, Pakistan. One argument made in opposition is that there are no photos, so how can we prove he's dead? The same people who advance this talking point fail to show any real evidence that he is either alive somewhere, or died years ago.

One example is the claim that Benazir Bhutto told BBC in an interview that he was murdered in 2007. However, in an interview a day later, when asked where bin Laden is, [http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/03/cnr.06.html she told CNN that General Musharraf knew where bin Laden was and was hiding him.] She also spoke of bin Laden being alive to Greta Van Susteren in November of 2007 after the BBC interview, to NPR, and to the BBC again. I believe the explanation that there was an error in translation, or she simply misspoke, as Bhutto was actually referring to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's murder of Daniel Pearl. Besides, if I was interviewing someone and they told me that they knew bin Laden was murdered, I certainly would ask follow-up questions or investigate further. You're also assuming that multiple media outlets across the world colluded together to "hide the truth."

Furthermore, if he is dead, where have the movies and recordings been coming from where he mentions current and ongoing events? Granted, he could have pre-recorded a message of his that was released on the 60th anniversary of Israel prior to his death, but in another, he mentions the election of Barack Obama. That assumes he was at least alive until 2007-2008. Additionally, these tapes have been verified as bin Laden, not only by the American government, but a variety of governments worldwide.

If he is still alive, where is he being held? What good does it do to keep him alive? Sure, you could get plenty of intelligence out of him, but there were stashes of computers and data found in his compound.

Now, I could understand and question if the United States threw a missile at his compound, reduced it to rubble and claimed he was dead. But, in saying that he's not dead, there's an implication that the US Navy Seals and the Obama administration are colluding to deceive the American public. Besides, there isn't any benefit, other than a temporary bump in the polls, that Obama could receive from lying about bin Laden. As of yet, he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, nor has he declared the War on Terror over. The elections are still 18 months away, a lifetime in politics, and there is no major legislation that the administration was trying to pass that needed a bump in support that an operation like this would provide.

In a case like this, I believe that the burden of proof really resides on the deniers. The only news sources I could find that discuss whether or not he is dead mainly poke huge holes through the deniers' stories and dismiss them as a fringe movement. Yes, there have been citizens of Pakistan who claim he's not dead, as well as a statement released by his family. However, they are either asking for evidence he's dead, and they don't offer any proof that he isn't dead. If I asked 25 random people on the street what color the sky was, I'm sure at least one would say something besides blue, but I wouldn't use that as evidence that the sky is indeed not blue.

And it's not a liberal media conspiracy either, as conservative news sources, including most of the top conservative news sources listed on this site, have either dismissed the theories or have not provided any support. Additionally, many of the theories concerning bin Laden still being alive require way too many jumps in logic that just aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever. The only "famous" person advocating these theories that I could find is Cindy Sheehan. Hell, even al Qaeda confirmed he's dead!

Finally, if you did get the pictures, would you be satisfied of his death? I think a vast majority would, but as with the birther movement, there will still be that teeny tiny percentage that will ignore any evidence that contradicts their theory. And if you got the DNA sample, what would you compare it to? Would you know how to analyze it? --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 15:11, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

That's by far the simplest and most likely explanation given the reactions of all the world governments, the United States, and Al Qaeda themselves. As with the moon landing and 9/11, there will always be debatable trivia (flag ripples, type of collapse, beard color), but it's unconvincing, speculative, and isn't connected to a strong alternate theory (the conspiracy are all more convoluted and farfetched). There's no doubt in my mind that we landed on the moon, that the World Trade Center collapsed because it was hit by planes hijacked by terrorists, and that a SEAL team shot bin Laden. I don't want to get too bogged down on the small points, which other people will argue,but the burial at sea was the most elegant solution --- you don't get accused of parading the body around and lose goodwill, and you don't leave it in Muslim hands where people may make it a shrine. There's not much Obama does well, but this time he did all right because he basically took the advice of his security advisors who knew much more than he did about fighting Al Qaeda and didn't stick to the misguided ideas from his campaign. Some day there will be books describing the campaign in detail and I'm sure it will be clear that the hardworking, serious people concerned with national security had more to do with it than any politician.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:34, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, the fact that Al Qaeda itself has admitted that Osama was killed in the manner the US government said has ended all reasonable doubt. I cannot imagine why anyone would doubt this unless they were masters of the are of cognitive dissonance. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:37, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
::Just a question for the "no" crowd. In your belief, are the Bush admin veterans such as John Brennan, and the military officers such as William McRaven also lying? [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 13:16, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

==NO==

In my opinion Osama was not killed in Abbottabad. The governments refusal to publish pictures of his corpse and the "burial at sea", which contradicts muslim funeral rites leave some very big question marks. The published videos also don't seem satisfactory to me. The fact that Osama coloured his beard is a bit too convenient to explain some Osama tapes, that are speculated to be fake. 
I suspect that he was either killed long before Obama became president, or that he was not actually killed at all, but captured by Seal Team Six.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:18, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

:@MarkN85: Thanks for participating. You made some interesting arguments. I would like to address some of your points: 
:Let's start with a misunderstanding. In my very short text, I never once mentioned the thought of a "liberal media conspiracy"; I didn't even mention the media at all. So quite a few of your points are kind of moot. 
:As for the videos: The videos are to some part, what ignited my doubts. The fact that they just very conveniently explain, why in some videos Osama has a black beard again, irritates me. Why would a muslim man dye his beard? Just for vanity? In the arabic culture a grey beard is a sign of wisdom (not that Osama is/was a wise man). The videos could have been found in another Al-Quaeda hideout, or in the very hideout in Abbottabad, which still does not prove that Osama was killed there. Btw: Did you look at the timeline of the Osama videos and the doubts about their authenticity? In 2007, after three years of video silence, there was a new Bin Laden video, which froze the picture of him, every time he mentioned current events. Could it be that he has/had a voice double? 
:As for the motivation of Obama to lie about the whole thing: Does Obama actually need a reason to lie? But seriously, there is no direct positive effect for Obama yet, apart from the slight bump in the polls. You're right. But the alleged death of Osama opens up a way to withdraw from Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. Obama will of course wait a bit longer till he drops that political bomb, which will give him more than a slight bump in the polls. 
:But in the end you're right. I can't proof that Osama is still alive or died years ago. But shouldn't the burden of proof be on the one who makes the claim in the first place? Why does Obama not publish proof that can be understood by the wider public and especially by the arab people? Btw: How do you explain the burial at sea, when the sons of Hussein were presented in an open casket?

::I have no idea why he dyes his beard, but [http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Sen-Osama-photos-pretty-graphic-1376666.php Senator Jim Inhofe] and [http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/46814/group/News/Representative Michelle Bachmann] have seen the actual photos at the CIA, agree with the decision not to release them to the public, and his beard is dyed in those photos. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 17:03, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

::: There were many valuable point made. Thank you for participating. I'll deal with them one for one. Please inform me if I forgot something. 
:::As for the moon landing and 9/11: We got evidence of those events. Evidence that was available to the public and could thus be scrutinized by the [[best of the public]]. So far the only "evidence" the public got was the oral assurance of the Obama-administration. 
:::Al-Quaeda confirming Osamas death: If Osama was killed/died years ago, or was captured alive by the SEALS, why would Al-Quaeda say so? If Osama died years ago, the Al-Quaeda would have lied to their followers, which would nit be good for them. If Osama was captured, that would be shameful for them, since he didn't die a martyr. It is advantegous for Al-Quaeda to say that Osama was killed (in action). Plus: Messages posted on the internet are not exactly the most reliable source, since they don't have to be posted by the higher up. 
:::As for Inhofe and Bachmann seeing the pictures: I think that is clearly a step in the right direction. BUT are Bachmann and Inhofe specialists in photoshop-technology? Would they be able to tell a well faked picture apart from a real one? I know I couldn't. And that's why I would like to see the pictures published, so they can be scrutinized by experts. Btw: Inhofe would also like to see at least the photos of the washed Osama published.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Debate]]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2011-05-12T16:54:31Z

KingHanksley:

[[Image:Ahmadinejad comparison.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A hostage taker, believed to be Ahmadinejad, photographed at the time, and Ahmadinejad in 2006 (right)]]
'''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''' is the current president of the [[Iran|Islamic Republic of Iran]], and the former mayor of [[Tehran]]. Since coming to power, on a campaign based on stamping out corruption, in 2005, he has pursued an agenda defined by support of [[Islamic]] fundamentalism, strong [[anti-Americanism]], and anti-Zionism. Under Ahmadinejad's rule Iran has put a large amount of effort into [[Nuclear program of Iran|producing nuclear technology]], possibly for nuclear weapons, although Iran has not yet been successful in this endeavor. His politics are mixed as best, as he retains a strong, conservative view towards homosexuality, infamously stating that there are no homosexuals in Iran. However, he has also eliminated some rights such as freedom of speech and the press.

Photographs appear to implicate Ahmadinejad in the 1979 [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] as someone involved with the hostage taking. Five former American hostages have stated that Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. A former US intelligence officer, said "I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body." [[BBC]] [[journalist|correspondent]] John Simpson recalled seeing Ahmadinejad on the embassy grounds. Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, a former president of Iran long living in exile, asserted that Ahmadinejad "wasn't among the decision-makers but he was among those inside the Embassy."<ref>'''Pipes, Daniel''' ''Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 1979-1981 U.S. Embassy Takeover'' (2006) [http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4844 Capitalism Magazine] Accessed 7 February 2008</ref> However, some former hostages dispute this claim. <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php</ref> Additionally, a number of terrorists who were actually involved in the hostage taking have denied Ahmedinejad's involvement.<ref>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16</ref> <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html</ref> A CIA report was commissioned to determine whether or not Ahmedinejad was involved in the hostage taking, and that report determined that the evidence was at best inconclusive. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2</ref> <ref>http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html</ref>

Ahmadinajed's foreign policies have been criticized by many within his country and government, who think he is too extreme and will cause their country to be attacked by the [[United States]].

Ahmadinejad is a [[Holocaust denial|Holocaust denier,]] calling it a "myth"<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm</ref> and a "holy lie,"<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/176326/ahmadinejads-holocaust-speech/michael-rubin</ref> and hosting a conference for holocaust deniers from around the world in Tehran.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/13/20061213-120143-8384r/?page=1</ref>
Former Israeli prime minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] has often compared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>'''Lappin, Yaakov''' ''Bibi: Iran president more dangerous than Hitler'' [http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3303129,00.html YNetNews]. Accessed 7 February 2008</ref><ref>'''Hirschberg, Peter''' ''Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust'' [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787766.html Haaretz]. Accessed 7 February 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Michael Moore]]
*[[9/11 Truther movement]]

==Rerefences==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud}}

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?

2011-05-12T16:34:38Z

KingHanksley: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Yes, Osama bin Laden was killed during a raid that occurred on May 1, 2011 in Abottabad, Pakistan. One argument made in opposition is that there are no photos, so how can we prove he's dead? The same people who advance this talking point fail to show any real evidence that he is either alive somewhere, or died years ago.

One example is the claim that Benazir Bhutto told BBC in an interview that he was murdered in 2007. However, in an interview a day later, when asked where bin Laden is, [http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/03/cnr.06.html she told CNN that General Musharraf knew where bin Laden was and was hiding him.] She also spoke of bin Laden being alive to Greta Van Susteren in November of 2007 after the BBC interview, to NPR, and to the BBC again. I believe the explanation that there was an error in translation, or she simply misspoke, as Bhutto was actually referring to Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's murder of Daniel Pearl. Besides, if I was interviewing someone and they told me that they knew bin Laden was murdered, I certainly would ask follow-up questions or investigate further. You're also assuming that multiple media outlets across the world colluded together to "hide the truth."

Furthermore, if he is dead, where have the movies and recordings been coming from where he mentions current and ongoing events? Granted, he could have pre-recorded a message of his that was released on the 60th anniversary of Israel prior to his death, but in another, he mentions the election of Barack Obama. That assumes he was at least alive until 2007-2008. Additionally, these tapes have been verified as bin Laden, not only by the American government, but a variety of governments worldwide.

If he is still alive, where is he being held? What good does it do to keep him alive? Sure, you could get plenty of intelligence out of him, but there were stashes of computers and data found in his compound.

Now, I could understand and question if the United States threw a missile at his compound, reduced it to rubble and claimed he was dead. But, in saying that he's not dead, there's an implication that the US Navy Seals and the Obama administration are colluding to deceive the American public. Besides, there isn't any benefit, other than a temporary bump in the polls, that Obama could receive from lying about bin Laden. As of yet, he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, nor has he declared the War on Terror over. The elections are still 18 months away, a lifetime in politics, and there is no major legislation that the administration was trying to pass that needed a bump in support that an operation like this would provide.

In a case like this, I believe that the burden of proof really resides on the deniers. The only news sources I could find that discuss whether or not he is dead mainly poke huge holes through the deniers' stories and dismiss them as a fringe movement. Yes, there have been citizens of Pakistan who claim he's not dead, as well as a statement released by his family. However, they are either asking for evidence he's dead, and they don't offer any proof that he isn't dead. If I asked 25 random people on the street what color the sky was, I'm sure at least one would say something besides blue, but I wouldn't use that as evidence that the sky is indeed not blue.

And it's not a liberal media conspiracy either, as conservative news sources, including most of the top conservative news sources listed on this site, have either dismissed the theories or have not provided any support. Additionally, many of the theories concerning bin Laden still being alive require way too many jumps in logic that just aren't backed up by any evidence whatsoever. The only "famous" person advocating these theories that I could find is Cindy Sheehan. Hell, even al Qaeda confirmed he's dead!

Finally, if you did get the pictures, would you be satisfied of his death? I think a vast majority would, but as with the birther movement, there will still be that teeny tiny percentage that will ignore any evidence that contradicts their theory. And if you got the DNA sample, what would you compare it to? Would you know how to analyze it? --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 15:11, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

That's by far the simplest and most likely explanation given the reactions of all the world governments, the United States, and Al Qaeda themselves. As with the moon landing and 9/11, there will always be debatable trivia (flag ripples, type of collapse, beard color), but it's unconvincing, speculative, and isn't connected to a strong alternate theory (the conspiracy are all more convoluted and farfetched). There's no doubt in my mind that we landed on the moon, that the World Trade Center collapsed because it was hit by planes hijacked by terrorists, and that a SEAL team shot bin Laden. I don't want to get too bogged down on the small points, which other people will argue,but the burial at sea was the most elegant solution --- you don't get accused of parading the body around and lose goodwill, and you don't leave it in Muslim hands where people may make it a shrine. There's not much Obama does well, but this time he did all right because he basically took the advice of his security advisors who knew much more than he did about fighting Al Qaeda and didn't stick to the misguided ideas from his campaign. Some day there will be books describing the campaign in detail and I'm sure it will be clear that the hardworking, serious people concerned with national security had more to do with it than any politician.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:34, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

==NO==

In my opinion Osama was not killed in Abbottabad. The governments refusal to publish pictures of his corpse and the "burial at sea", which contradicts muslim funeral rites leave some very big question marks. The published videos also don't seem satisfactory to me. The fact that Osama coloured his beard is a bit too convenient to explain some Osama tapes, that are speculated to be fake. 
I suspect that he was either killed long before Obama became president, or that he was not actually killed at all, but captured by Seal Team Six.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:18, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

:@MarkN85: Thanks for participating. You made some interesting arguments. I would like to address some of your points: 
:Let's start with a misunderstanding. In my very short text, I never once mentioned the thought of a "liberal media conspiracy"; I didn't even mention the media at all. So quite a few of your points are kind of moot. 
:As for the videos: The videos are to some part, what ignited my doubts. The fact that they just very conveniently explain, why in some videos Osama has a black beard again, irritates me. Why would a muslim man dye his beard? Just for vanity? In the arabic culture a grey beard is a sign of wisdom (not that Osama is/was a wise man). The videos could have been found in another Al-Quaeda hideout, or in the very hideout in Abbottabad, which still does not prove that Osama was killed there. Btw: Did you look at the timeline of the Osama videos and the doubts about their authenticity? In 2007, after three years of video silence, there was a new Bin Laden video, which froze the picture of him, every time he mentioned current events. Could it be that he has/had a voice double? 
:As for the motivation of Obama to lie about the whole thing: Does Obama actually need a reason to lie? But seriously, there is no direct positive effect for Obama yet, apart from the slight bump in the polls. You're right. But the alleged death of Osama opens up a way to withdraw from Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. Obama will of course wait a bit longer till he drops that political bomb, which will give him more than a slight bump in the polls. 
:But in the end you're right. I can't proof that Osama is still alive or died years ago. But shouldn't the burden of proof be on the one who makes the claim in the first place? Why does Obama not publish proof that can be understood by the wider public and especially by the arab people? Btw: How do you explain the burial at sea, when the sons of Hussein were presented in an open casket?

[[Category:Debate]]