Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Chivalry

2013-05-07T14:42:19Z

KrisS:

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirized (and immortalized) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every respectable young woman will be someone's future wife
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders, and recognizing innate differences that prevent such fair competition
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==
The concept of '''chivalry''' originated from various codes of behavior that were impressed upon knights. This took the form of a codified Code of Chivalry in or about the 12th century, largely spurred on by writings of Medieval courtly literature. Medieval courtly literature glorifies the valor, tactics and ideals of ancient Romans. For example the ancient hand-book of warfare written by Vegetius called ''De Re Militari'' was translated into French in the 13th century as ''L'art de chevalerie'' by Jean de Meun. Later writers also drew from Vegetius such as Honore Bonet who wrote the 14th century ''L'arbes des batailles'', which discussed the morals and laws of war. In the 15th century Christine de Pizan combined themes from Vegetius, Bonet and Frontinus in ''Livre des faits d'armes et de chevalerie''.

In medieval times, the concept of '''chivalry''' was instilled in the minds of all who became knights, as part of their training. Today, the modern notion of chivalry is often ignored in western public education - false notions of [[gender equality]] are taught instead. The lack of chivalrous education in the public school system is one of many reasons why parents may prefer [[homeschooling]] for their children. (See [[Homeschooling#Reasons for Homeschooling|Homeschooling: Reasons for Homeschooling]].)

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Chivalry

2013-05-07T14:41:52Z

KrisS:

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirised (and immortalised) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristrocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every respectable young woman will be someone's future wife
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders, and recognizing innate differences that prevent such fair competition
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==
The concept of '''chivalry''' originated from various codes of behavior that were impressed upon knights. This took the form of a codified Code of Chivalry in or about the 12th century, largely spurred on by writings of Medieval courtly literature. Medieval courtly literature glorifies the valor, tactics and ideals of ancient Romans. For example the ancient hand-book of warfare written by Vegetius called ''De Re Militari'' was translated into French in the 13th century as ''L'art de chevalerie'' by Jean de Meun. Later writers also drew from Vegetius such as Honore Bonet who wrote the 14th century ''L'arbes des batailles'', which discussed the morals and laws of war. In the 15th century Christine de Pizan combined themes from Vegetius, Bonet and Frontinus in ''Livre des faits d'armes et de chevalerie''.

In medieval times, the concept of '''chivalry''' was instilled in the minds of all who became knights, as part of their training. Today, the modern notion of chivalry is often ignored in western public education - false notions of [[gender equality]] are taught instead. The lack of chivalrous education in the public school system is one of many reasons why parents may prefer [[homeschooling]] for their children. (See [[Homeschooling#Reasons for Homeschooling|Homeschooling: Reasons for Homeschooling]].)

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Ken Cuccinelli

2013-01-30T19:29:42Z

KrisS: Outdated

'''Kenneth T. 'Ken' Cuccinelli II''' (born July 30, 1968) is a former [[Virginia]] State [[Senator]], and was elected [[Attorney General]] of Virginia in the 2009 election. He served on the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, Transportation Committee, Local Government Committee, and the Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee.

A [[Republican]], Ken Cuccinelli is a principled [[conservative]]: he is [[pro-life]] regarding [[abortion]], has received the endorsement of the [[National Rifle Association]], and has a 100% pro-business voting record as rated by the National Federation of Independent Business. Cuccinelli publicly stated that it was very likely that President [[Barack Obama]] was born in Kenya, and that the validity of any law that he signed could be challenged to raise the question of Obama's citizenship. He is extremely critical of the [[homosexual agenda]], and sent a letter to all public schools in Virginia demanding that they stop promoting and granting homosexuals protections they don't legally have.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html</ref>

Cuccinelli, has demanded the seizure of documents from several professors at the extremely liberal college, [[University of Virginia]], relating to the notorious liberal scandal, [[Climategate]]. <ref>[http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/attorney_general_demands_papers_on_climate_data_from_uva/55634/P20/]</ref>

Also he is opposed to illegal aliens.<ref>http://www.cuccinelli.com/issues/immigration</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cuccinelli, Ken}}
[[Category:Virginia]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Political Figures]]

Talk:Am Govt Midterm

2012-12-31T02:38:06Z

KrisS: /* Please add your comments, feedback or criticisms of the Am Govt Midterm exam below: */

Top scores:

*15/15 - 9 students
*14/15 - 3 students
*13/15 - 3 students
*12/15 - 5 students

==== Please add your comments, feedback or criticisms of the Am Govt Midterm exam below: ====
I got 13/15 correct. In my opinion it's a little too easy. [[User:KrisS|KrisS]] 21:38, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Atheism and liberalism

2012-03-22T04:29:19Z

KrisS: Redirected page to Liberalism and atheism

#REDIRECT [[Liberalism and atheism]]

Rick Santorum

2012-01-17T04:56:19Z

KrisS: Okay -- is this good?

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Richard John "Rick" Santorum''' (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views, but he would endorse and aggressively campaign for [[pro-abortion]] candidates against [[pro-life]] opponents. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

<blockquote>
Santorum was an author and floor manager of the landmark "Welfare Reform Act" which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. Senator Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion" as well as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", and the "Combating Autism Act" because he believes each and every individual has value and the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. <ref> [http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick Why Rick?]</ref>
</blockquote>

A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "[[Santorum Amendment]]" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to undermine curricula which present the [[theory of evolution]] in a dogmatic way, but amendment opponents said it the language would have the effect of supporting the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s, which they regard as [[Creationism]] rather than as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Santorum is currently a candidate for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential Election]].
==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] have become obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argue that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they know the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. They can only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks; it's gotten so pathetic that now they're dedicated to slandering his name by equating it with fecal matter, knowing full well they can't refute any of his arguments.

==Dan Savage==
Homosexual advice columnist [[Dan Savage]] instigated a campaign on [[Google]] to associate Santorum's name with vile slang. By enlisting the help of readers of his column, mostly college students experimenting with sexual deviancy, he redirected legitimate searches for Santorum's name to a slanderous website he created, urging people to spread the candidate's name as a vile Internet meme. That children are often the first to absorb new Internet content was apparently of no concern to the gay rights activist, who also encouraged writers to his newspaper column to address him as "Dear Faggot."<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340</ref>

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606</ref>, Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

<blockquote>
In the [[Iowa]] caucuses, January, 3, 2012, Santorum and [[Mitt Romney]] Fight to a Draw. In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes, offering Rick Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mitt Romney. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Vote] </ref>
</blockquote>

==Personal Life==
Rick Santorum and his wife Karen are the parents of seven children: Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter, Patrick and Isabella. Isabella was born in 2008 with a rare genetic disorder known as Trisomy 18. Most children born with this disorder die in infancy, and only about 10 percent survive to their first birthday.<ref name="santorum">[http://www.ncregister.com/site/article%20/presidential-hopefuls-rick-santorum1/ Presidential Hopefuls: Rick Santorum, Catholic Former Senator Lives Out His Devotion to the Sanctity of Life] Hayes, Charlotte, National Catholic Register, January 9, 2012, retrieved January 15, 2012</ref>

In keeping with his conservative, pro life stance, Santorum counts as his eighth child Gabriel, who sadly lost his life in 1996 due to an infection contracted in the womb. The baby was born five months prematurely, and died two hours later in the hospital. According to an article in the ''National Catholic Register'', the Santorums "took their child home briefly so that their other children could meet their brother." Santorum stated, "We wanted them to know that there was a baby and that his life was precious and that baby in the womb was real,"<ref name="santorum"/>

The Santorum family's struggle with the sadness of the loss of their son, and their decision to mourn the baby as a human being, served as an inspiration to other families struggling with the pain of losing a child. On the other hand, the criticism Santorum received from pro abortion journalists, such as liberal "gotcha reporter" Alan Colmes,<ref>www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48506</ref> who accused Santorum of "playing" with his dead child's body, has been fierce. Public sentiment, however, is firmly in Santorum's column.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/286998/alan-colmes-apologizes-rick-santorum-greg-pollowitz</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Catholic Politicians]]

Rick Santorum

2012-01-17T04:48:23Z

KrisS: /* Liberal Obsession with Santorum */

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Richard John "Rick" Santorum''' (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958) is an American lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views, but he would endorse and aggressively campaign for [[pro-abortion]] candidates against [[pro-life]] opponents. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

<blockquote>
Santorum was an author and floor manager of the landmark "Welfare Reform Act" which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. Senator Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion" as well as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", and the "Combating Autism Act" because he believes each and every individual has value and the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. <ref> [http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick Why Rick?]</ref>
</blockquote>

A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "[[Santorum Amendment]]" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to undermine curricula which present the [[theory of evolution]] in a dogmatic way, but amendment opponents said it the language would have the effect of supporting the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s, which they regard as [[Creationism]] rather than as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Santorum is currently a candidate for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential Election]].
==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] have become obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argue that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they know the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. They can only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks; it's gotten so pathetic that now they're dedicated to slandering his name by equating it with fecal matter <ref>http://spreadingsantorum.com</ref> knowing full well they can't refute any of his arguments.

==Dan Savage==
Homosexual advice columnist [[Dan Savage]] instigated a campaign on [[Google]] to associate Santorum's name with vile slang. By enlisting the help of readers of his column, mostly college students experimenting with sexual deviancy, he redirected legitimate searches for Santorum's name to a slanderous website he created, urging people to spread the candidate's name as a vile Internet meme. That children are often the first to absorb new Internet content was apparently of no concern to the gay rights activist, who also encouraged writers to his newspaper column to address him as "Dear Faggot."<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340</ref>

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606</ref>, Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

<blockquote>
In the [[Iowa]] caucuses, January, 3, 2012, Santorum and [[Mitt Romney]] Fight to a Draw. In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes, offering Rick Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mitt Romney. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Vote] </ref>
</blockquote>

==Personal Life==
Rick Santorum and his wife Karen are the parents of seven children: Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter, Patrick and Isabella. Isabella was born in 2008 with a rare genetic disorder known as Trisomy 18. Most children born with this disorder die in infancy, and only about 10 percent survive to their first birthday.<ref name="santorum">[http://www.ncregister.com/site/article%20/presidential-hopefuls-rick-santorum1/ Presidential Hopefuls: Rick Santorum, Catholic Former Senator Lives Out His Devotion to the Sanctity of Life] Hayes, Charlotte, National Catholic Register, January 9, 2012, retrieved January 15, 2012</ref>

In keeping with his conservative, pro life stance, Santorum counts as his eighth child Gabriel, who sadly lost his life in 1996 due to an infection contracted in the womb. The baby was born five months prematurely, and died two hours later in the hospital. According to an article in the ''National Catholic Register'', the Santorums "took their child home briefly so that their other children could meet their brother." Santorum stated, "We wanted them to know that there was a baby and that his life was precious and that baby in the womb was real,"<ref name="santorum"/>

The Santorum family's struggle with the sadness of the loss of their son, and their decision to mourn the baby as a human being, served as an inspiration to other families struggling with the pain of losing a child. On the other hand, the criticism Santorum received from pro abortion journalists, such as liberal "gotcha reporter" Alan Colmes,<ref>www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48506</ref> who accused Santorum of "playing" with his dead child's body, has been fierce. Public sentiment, however, is firmly in Santorum's column.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/286998/alan-colmes-apologizes-rick-santorum-greg-pollowitz</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Catholic Politicians]]

Infamous liberals

2011-12-06T00:03:58Z

KrisS: Liberalism isn't just a set of beliefs, it's also how someone acts and thinks. Phelps fits the bill of acting like a liberal perfectly.

Below is a list of infamous [[liberals]]:

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

* [[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

* [[Charles Darwin]]

* [[Fred Phelps]], deranged pastor of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]]

* [[Richard Dawkins]]
== See also ==

*[[Atheism and mass murder]]
*[[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]
*[[Atheism and uncharitableness]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

{{Liberalism}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Liberals]]

The Twilight Saga

2011-11-25T00:20:34Z

KrisS: /* Politics */

The '''Twilight Saga''' is a series of books and films about a young lady who falls in love with a [[vampire]] from the 19th century. The series has seen mixed reactions from critics and the public, and over 100 million copies have been sold worldwide of both the books and the films. The author of the series, Stephanie Meyer, attended [[Brigham Young University]] and is a member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. The pro-marriage and pro-life elements bore [[liberal]]s, inspiring several of them to mock the series.

==Politics==
Impressively, the series seems to make certain elements of conservatism "cool" to young school girls whereas other series targeting the demographic encourage immorality. Despite not referencing Christianity, the series seems to support traditional marriage and Chrisitian morals; for example, Edward, being from the 19th century when immorality seen as normal in modern times was considered taboo, refused to engage in sexual intercourse with Bella prior to marriage, and Bella was pro-life even when having the baby put herself at great risk (this in particular upsets [[liberal]]s). However, the features vampires and werewolves, which are part of non-Christian mythology, and it does not depict any of the characters as Christians.

Logical fallacy

2011-11-22T19:42:41Z

KrisS:

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

Logical fallacies are the beloved debating tactic of liberals; for this reason, it is not advised to debate them unless you have to, as you will only up frustrated when one of them inevitably claims global warming is true because [[Al Gore]] said so.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use a more extreme example, but one doubtless familiar from everyday life, the mere fact that a child's belief in [[Santa Claus]] can have positive consequences does not prove that Santa Claus exists.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
* [[Liberal logic]]

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201-218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

Infamous liberals

2011-11-22T07:10:16Z

KrisS: Richard Dawkins

Below is a list of infamous [[liberals]]:

* [[Joseph Stalin]] was an [[atheism|atheist]], [[communism|communist]], and [[evolution|evolutionist]] dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Mao Tse Tung]] - atheist and communist dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

* [[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

* [[Charles Darwin]]

* [[Fred Phelps]], deranged pastor of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]]

* [[Richard Dawkins]]
== See also ==

*[[Atheism and mass murder]]
*[[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]
*[[Atheism and uncharitableness]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

{{Liberalism}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Liberals]]

The Twilight Saga

2011-11-22T06:52:23Z

KrisS: /* Politics */

{{spoiler}}

The '''Twilight Saga''' is a series of books and films about a young lady who falls in love with a [[vampire]] from the 19th century. The series has seen mixed reactions from critics and the public, and over 100 million copies have been sold worldwide of both the books and the films. The author of the series, Stephanie Meyer, attended [[Brigham Young University]] and is a member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. The pro-marriage and pro-life elements bore [[liberal]]s, inspiring several of them to mock the series.

==Plot==
The young lady, Isabella Swan (commonly referred to as "Bella"), moved to her father's home in Forks, Washington from her mother's home in Phoenix, Arizona while in [[high school]]. Bella meets Edward Cullen, a vampire whom she eventually marries, at her high school, and she also meets Jacob Black, a werewolf, as a family friend of her father. After marrying Edward, Bella gives birth to a daughter whom she names Renesmee.

==Politics==
Impressively, the series seems to make certain elements of conservatism "cool" to young school girls whereas other series targeting the demographic encourage immorality. Despite not referencing Christianity, the series seems to support traditional marriage and Chrisitian morals; for example, Edward, being from the 19th century when immorality seen as normal in modern times was considered taboo, refused to engage in sexual intercourse with Bella prior to marriage, and Bella was pro-life even when having the baby put herself at great risk (this in particular upsets [[liberal]]s). However, the features vampires and werewolves, which are part of non-Christian mythology, and it does not depict any of the characters as church goers.

Logical fallacy

2011-11-22T00:00:11Z

KrisS:

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]], although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

Logical fallacies are the beloved debating tactic of liberals; for this reason, it is not advised to debate them unless you have to, as you will only up frustrated when one of them inevitably claims global warming is true because Al Gore said so.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===Appeal to Consequences===
An ''appeal to consequences,'' or, more fully, ''appeal to adverse consequences'' or ''appeal to consequences of a belief,''<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences]</ref> is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are fallacious because the consequences of believing or disbelieving have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a belief. The following is an example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false

This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:

* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true

This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.

To use a more extreme example, but one doubtless familiar from everyday life, the mere fact that a child's belief in [[Santa Claus]] can have positive consequences does not prove that Santa Claus exists.

A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold or, alternatively, by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person to discredit in advance any argument that that person may make.<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Fallacy: Poisoning the Well]</ref> The first variant of the argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X.
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X.
*Person A is wrong about Y.
*Therefore, person A must also be wrong about X.

The second variant follows this form:

*Person B, knowing that person A will make argument X, introduces unfavorable information about person A that is unrelated to X.
*Person A makes argument X.
*Therefore, person A must be wrong about X.

One example of the first variant was by the actor [[Matt Damon]], who attempted to discredit [[Sarah Palin|Sarah Palin's]] political credibility on the basis that she was a young-earth creationist: {{cquote|You know, the hockey mom, you know, "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska," and she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin and you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it's just absurd. It's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. I...it's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really - I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. That's an important - I want to know that. I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes. You know, I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't have that.<ref>Page F30. [http://www.pagef30.com/2008/09/matt-damon-on-sarah-palin-with.html ''Matt Damon on Sarah Palin with transcript''] (2008)</ref>}}

An example of the second variant is to introduce information (true or false) about a distateful or objectionable aspect of someone's personal life to persuade the listeners to reject out of hand whatever that person may say, when that aspect of the person's personal life may have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the positions that that person will take.

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects or because the asserted unfavorable information has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the position being attacked. There is some overlap between poisoning the well and ''ad hominem'' abusive, although poisoning the well in the second sense is used to mean introducing the irrelevant information preemptively.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

===Fallacies of relevance based on the age of an idea===
The '''appeal to antiquity''', also known as the '''appeal to tradition''', holds that an idea must be right just because it is old.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/ Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition]</ref> Its opposite is the '''appeal to novelty''', which holds that an idea must be right just because it is new.<ref>[http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/ Appeal to Novelty]</ref> Both are fallacies of relevance because the mere age of an idea does not tell us whether it is true. For example, an old idea could be a time-tested and sound concept, or it could be an ancient [[superstition]] like [[astrology]]. Similarly, a new idea could be the result of new [[information]] or an intellectual fad like [[postmodernism]].

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is/does Q.
*P is a member of the set R.
*Therefore, everyone/everything in the set R is/does Q.

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. Proving too much includes reaching a conclusion that contradicts either things known to be true or [[stolen concept|the premises used to reach that conclusion]]. The term comes from the medieval saying, "What proves too much proves nothing."

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

===Moving the Goalposts===
[[Moving the goalposts]] is jargon used almost exclusively by evolutionists to decline to answer a question that is the logical next step in their argument. This next step is avoided by evolutionists by claiming that their critics are "moving the goalposts."

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
* [[Liberal logic]]

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201-218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

Parental rights

2011-11-20T23:22:33Z

KrisS:

'''Parental rights''' are the basic sets of rights as defined not only by law, but also culture, society and religion, a parent retains over his children, over the choices he makes regarding his children, and over the choices the children make. It is paired with '''parental responsiblity''' which are the legal obligations a parent must abide by, according to law, culture, society and religion.

From a [[conservative]] perspective, parental rights focus on those rights of parents to control the [[education]], upbringing and disclipline of their children which conservatives see being stripped by the US and local governments.

The issue of '''parental rights''' arises most often when [[public school]]s indoctrinate students with ideas against the wishes of parents, as in the case of:

* [[liberal|liberalism]]
* [[atheism]]
* [[sex education]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[chivalry|anti-chivalry]]
* [[pornography]]
* [[homosexuality]]
* [[abortion]]
* [[suicide]]
* [[evolution]]
* [[global warming]]
* [[bestiality]]

Parents, as taxpayers paying for the education, would seemingly have the right to object to offensive indoctrination. But increasingly [[public school]]s and courts insist that parents have little or no rights over what [[public school]]s teach their children.

== See also ==

*''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]''
*''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]''

[[Category:education]]

Parental rights

2011-11-20T23:19:46Z

KrisS:

'''Parental rights''' are the basic sets of rights as defined not only by law, but also culture, society and religion, a parent retains over his children, over the choices he makes regarding his children, and over the choices the children make. It is paired with '''parental responsiblity''' which are the legal obligations a parent must abide by, according to law, culture, society and religion.

From a [[conservative]] perspective, parental rights focus on those rights of parents to control the [[education]], upbringing and disclipline of their children which conservatives see being stripped by the US and local governments.

The issue of '''parental rights''' arises most often when [[public school]]s indoctrinate students with ideas against the wishes of parents, as in the case of:

* [[Liberal|liberalism]]
* [[sex education]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[pornography]]
* [[homosexuality]]
* [[abortion]]
* [[suicide]]
* nosy, suggestive, and privacy-invading questionnaires
* [[evolution]]
* [[global warming]]
* [[bestiality]]

Parents, as taxpayers paying for the education, would seemingly have the right to object to offensive indoctrination. But increasingly [[public school]]s and courts insist that parents have little or no rights over what [[public school]]s teach their children.

== See also ==

*''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]''
*''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]''

[[Category:education]]

LSM

2011-11-20T17:11:45Z

KrisS: Redirected page to MSM

#REDIRECT [[MSM]]

McDonald's

2011-11-20T17:05:06Z

KrisS: /* Support for homosexual agenda */

[[File:Mcdonalds-logo.png|right]]
'''McDonald's''' is an global fast-food chain specializing in [[hamburger|hamburgers]]. It operates more than 30,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries on 6 continents.<ref>http://www.supersizeme.com/home.aspx?page=bythelb</ref> Although the first McDonald's was opened in [[California]] in 1940 by the McDonald brothers, the first [[franchise]] under the corporation as it exists today was opened by [[Ray Kroc]] in [[Illinois]] in 1955. The company is headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois.

McDonald's is the most popular fast-food restaurant, and second to Subway in number of stores.

McDonald's has been criticized for knowingly selling unhealthy food, and having a history of advertising burgers and fries to children, who consume their Happy Meals and play in their indoor playgrounds, often with parents having no other choice since cities do not have adequate playgrounds for them.
==History==
Richard and Maurice McDonald opened McDonald's Bar-B-Que in San Bernardino, California. It was a typical drive-in featuring a vast menu and carhops. In 1948, the McDonald brothers shut down the restaurant for three months for alterations. They remade it into a self-service restaurant featuring only a few menu items: Hamburgers and cheeseburgers, soda, milkshakes, coffee, potato chips, and pie, with the core staple being the 15 cent hamburger.
==Criticism==
McDonald's has often been accused of knowingly selling unhealthy food<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=yNFN1OpnkBkC&dq=fast+food+nation&pg=PP1&ots=l_kkxv7x65&sig=M0lMjzxa92mnxMp4CXMS3VaYpLk&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dfast%2Bfood%2Bnation%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPA2,M1 Fast Food Nation]</ref>. McDonald's states that health is not only an issue of food but also of a balanced active lifestyle. McDonald's sponsors many events that promote active physical behavior, such as The Olympic Games.<ref>[http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat.html McDonald's Corporate website]</ref>; this is why many McDonald's restaurants have a jungle gym for the children to play in and be active. McDonald's also sells salads and water, two healthy food items, breakfast foods such as oatmeal, and several drinks that are artificially flavored to taste like fruit. The "[[schlockumentary]]" ''[[Super Size Me]]'' aimed at proving that McDonald's had no interest in healthy customers whatsoever.<ref>[http://www.supersizeme.com/ Super Size Me]</ref>

=== McLibel Trial ===
In 1990, McDonald's sued for [[libel]] several members of Greenpeace London (an organization which at the time of the incident was no longer connected with Greenpeace), who had been writing and distributing leaflets criticizing McDonald's. Of the five defendants, three repented due to lack of money for legal costs. The remaining two, [[Helen Steel]] and [[Dave Morris]], decided to take the case to court in 1994 with [[pro bono]] legal representation and public donations. This became known as the [[McLibel]] Trial. On day 102 in court - March 13, 1995 - McLibel became the longest ever UK libel trial, beating the previous record of 101 days in the Daily Mail vs The Moonies (1982). On December 11, 1995, it became the longest civil case (as opposed to criminal) in British history.
On November 1, 1996 (court day 292), McLibel became the longest trial of any kind in English history.

On June 19, 1997, Mr. Justice Bell took two hours to read his summary. He ruled that Steel and Morris had not proved the allegations against McDonald's on rainforest destruction, heart disease and cancer, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World and bad working conditions. But they had proved that McDonald's "exploit children" with their advertising, falsely advertise their food as nutritious, risk the health of their most regular, long-term customers, are "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals, are "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages.

The Judge ruled that Steel and Morris had libeled McDonald's, but as they had proved many of the allegations, they would only owe half of the claimed damages: £60,000.

=== Support for [[homosexual]] agenda ===

In March of 2008, Richard Ellis, McDonald's vice president of communications, joined the board of directors of a pro gay-rights organization, the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.<ref>[http://outandaboutnewspaper.com/article.php?id=2470 "National gay chamber adds McDonald’s corporation officer to board." ''Out and About'' March 13, 2008.]</ref> Ellis states:

<blockquote>
I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. <ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=27747 Erin Roach. "McDonald's gives support to homosexual activists' agenda." ''Baptist Press'' April 3, 2008]</ref>
</blockquote>

McDonald's thus joins other large American corporations, such as [[Wal-Mart]]<ref>[http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/08/21/4 "Walmart launches gay-friendly initiative" August 21, 2006]</ref>, in actively backing admitted homosexual organizations and their agendas.

A boycott by the [[AFA]] ended on October 9th, 2008 when McDonald's chose to take a neutral position on gay issues. However, in 2010, McDonald's once again demonstrated active support for homosexuality as part of their "Come As You Are" campaign, airing a commercial in France which features a young customer talking on the phone to his lover. At the end of the commercial, the young man is revealed to be homosexual. <ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/04/2010-06-04_gay_mcdonalds_ad_airing_in_france_evokes_strong_reactions_around_the_world_over_.html</ref>

===''Super Size Me''===
''Super Size Me'' is a schlockumentary by liberal filmmaker Morgan Spurlock. The film is meant to criticize the fast food industry, with a special focus on McDonald's. Spurlock decides to go on a diet in which he would eat and drink items that came from McDonald's for thirty days. He had doctors check him before the experiment, and they said he was in excellent health.

Spurlock did this because he had said that McDonald's claimed their food could be integrated into a healthy diet. Spurlock ate three full meals from McDonald's for a month, eating each menu item at least once. He was to super size his meal only when asked by the cashier. He also greatly decreased his excercise regimen, to be on par with the average McDonald's consumer. Toward the end of his experiment, his doctors urgently advised him to quit to save his health and possibly his life.

After a month, Spurlock had significant weight gain, an increase in cholesterol, and fatty liver. McDonald's took the Super Size option off their menu, though they claim it was not a result of the film.

== Regionalization ==
McDonald's outlets outside of the US often have different menu items, and the formulations of some products may vary. For example, McDonald's sells rice in many Asian countries, and McDonald's [[Australia]] sells a wider range of 'healthy' foods, such as wraps with poached chicken, and has smaller portion sizes.

==Menu==
McDonald's original menu when the Speedy Service System was adopted was simply hamburgers, chips, soda, and milkshakes.

Today, McDonald's has a largely meat-and-potatoes diet, with sandwiches such as the McDouble (two hamburger patties with cheese, onions, seasonings, and pickle) the Big Mac (a larger burger with two patties three buns, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, onions, and a special sauce) the Quarter Pounder and the Double Quarter Pounder, the Big n' Tasty, the McChicken (fried chicken sandwich with mayonaise and lettuce) the Filet o' Fish (fish with tartar sauce), and others. There are also various sizes of French gries, sodas, milkshakes (strawberry, vanilla, chocolate, various seasonal shakes such as Mint and egg nog), ice cream and sundaes. In recent years, healthier options have been added such as premium salads, parfaits, Snack Wraps, and apples.

==Employment==
McDonald's employs workers, often those who are in high school and college. Wages are minimal, and only full-time workers receive benefits of any sort. McDonalds is an easy way for many people to become employed. Many people who even have college degrees who have a hard time finding a job get a job at a McDonald's. McDonald's creates opportunities for advancement, and there is even a university called "Hamburger University" for aspiring workers. On April 19, 2011, over 50,000 people are employed at local McDonald's restaurants.

==See also==
*[[McDonaldization]]
*[[MaDonal]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.mcdonalds.com/ Company website]
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press

== References ==
<references />

[[category:Companies]]
[[Category:Restaurants]]
[[Category:Fast Foods]]

Chivalry

2011-11-18T23:56:39Z

KrisS: /* Chivalry and Education */

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirised (and immortalised) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristrocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every young woman could be someone's future husband
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==

In medieval times, the concept of '''chivalry''' was instilled in the minds of all who became knights, as part of their training. Today, the modern notion of chivalry is often ignored in western public education - false notions of [[gender equality]] are taught instead. The lack of chivalrous education in the public school system is one of many reasons why parents may prefer [[homeschooling]] for their children. (See [[Homeschooling#Reasons for Homeschooling|Homeschooling: Reasons for Homeschooling]])

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

User:KrisS

2011-11-18T05:49:53Z

KrisS: Created page with "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php..."

There is currently no text in this page. You can [[Special:Search/KrisS|search for this page title]] in other pages, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KrisS search the related logs], or [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:KrisS&action=edit edit this page].

Chivalry

2011-11-18T05:28:49Z

KrisS: /* Modern Chivalry */

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirised (and immortalised) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristrocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every young woman could be someone's future husband
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==

In medieval times, the concept of '''chivalry''' was instilled in the minds of all who became knights, as part of their training. Today, the modern notion of chivalry is often ignored in western public education - false notions of gender equality are taught instead. The lack of chivalrous education in the public school system is one of many reasons why parents may prefer [[homeschooling]] for their children. (See [[Homeschooling#Reasons for Homeschooling|Homeschooling: Reasons for Homeschooling]])

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Chivalry

2011-11-18T05:26:33Z

KrisS: /* Modern Chivalry */

'''Chivalry''' was the medieval code of behavior for [[knight]]s. It mandated loyalty to one's [[lord]] and to [[God]], and women were to be honored as the equivalent of the [[Virgin Mary]]. The Code of chivalry was not only intended to create good warriors, but also to endow knights with strong morals and [[faith]]s. The word itself comes from the French word for "knight", ''chevalier''.

Knights would usually take an [[oath]] of chivalry before partaking in the [[Crusade]]s, leading and protecting the pilgrims on their journey to [[Jerusalem]].

Chivalric romances, books which recounted the deeds of heroic knights such as King Arthur and Amadís de Gaula, were a popular genre of fiction in 16th century [[Europe]]. They were satirised (and immortalised) in [[Don Quixote]], where an aging aristrocrat attempts to apply anachronistic chivalric values to his own time, with disastrous results.

== Modern Chivalry ==

In modern terms, '''chivalry''' consists of the following behavior:

* treating women with flattering respect, such as holding a door or standing when a woman gets up from a table or visits it
* realizing that every woman could be someone's future husband
* refraining from degrading or profane speech in the presence of women
* recognizing that certain tasks should be done by men, such as taking out the garbage or carrying heavy boxes
* supporting, and treating, women graciously, and adopting a work ethic to make that possible
* honesty and [[fidelity]] in business dealings
* avoiding of [[gossip]]
* courtesy and humility in everyday life
* protecting of the weaker elements of society
* in religious terms, it can be the devotion and defense of one's belief
* prohibition of competition between genders
* maintaining a posture and demeanor that is respectful to others and to yourself

== Chivalry and Education ==

In medieval times, the concept of '''chivalry''' was instilled in the minds of all who became knights, as part of their training. Today, the modern notion of chivalry is often ignored in western public education - false notions of gender equality are taught instead. The lack of chivalrous education in the public school system is one of many reasons why parents may prefer [[homeschooling]] for their children. (See [[Homeschooling#Reasons for Homeschooling|Homeschooling: Reasons for Homeschooling]])

== Sources ==

* http://www.chivalrynow.net/articles/chivalry.htm

[[category:Feudalism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]