Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Algebra

2011-09-11T00:29:33Z

Laroseblanche: /* Elementary Algebra */

{{Math-e}}
'''Algebra''' is a major branch of [[mathematics]] that analyzes the relationships between quantities or items. In higher math the principal fields of algebra are [[linear algebra]], which focuses on matrices, and [[group theory]].<ref>The name algebra comes from the [[Arabic]] word ''al jebr'', which means reduction or "reunion of broken parts" [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/algebra Algebra] as mentioned in a book ''Hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala'' translated as ''Science of the Reunion and the Opposition''. This text was written in in about 830 AD by [[Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī| Mohammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi]] of [[Baghdad]]. See the [http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/alkhwa.html Biography of Al-Khwarizmi]</ref>

==Elementary Algebra==
Andy Schlalfy is an idiot who cannot teach math.
While algebra is a very wide-ranging and advanced topic in theoretical mathematics, the word also refers to a very important topic in middle-school and high-school mathematics. This topic is the handling of arithmetical expressions and operations involving quantities that aren't known numbers, but are symbols like x, y, or z. These symbols are generally referred to as "variables" or "unknowns".

Whereas, in elementary arithmetic a typical question might be:
::What is the value of 3+4?
in elementary algebra a typical question might be:
::If x+4=7, what is the value of x?

Of course this example is so simple as to be practically pointless—why would someone ask a question this way?—the use of algebra opens up sophisticated ways of solving sophisticated problems.

Before continuing, let's see how we actually solved that. We subtracted 4 from each side of the equation. On the left side, subtracting 4 canceled the "+4", so we got "x+4-4", which is, of course, just x. On the right side, we got 7-4, which is 3. We used the principle that
::You can apply mathematical operations to something, even if it contains unknowns like "x".
The goal was to get an equation that has just "x" on the left side, with some number on the right. In the original problem, x was on the left side, but hidden with some other mathematical operations. Our job was to strip off those operations, one at a time. Here's a more complicated example:
::<math>\left(\frac{\sqrt{x+31}}{3} + 1\right) \times 6 = 18\,</math>
We undo the multiplication, by dividing both sides by 6:
::<math>\frac{\sqrt{x+31}}{3} + 1 = 3\,</math>
We undo the addition:
::<math>\frac{\sqrt{x+31}}{3} = 2\,</math>
We undo the division:
::<math>\sqrt{x+31} = 6\,</math>
We undo the square root:
::<math>x+31 = 36\,</math>
We undo the addition:
::<math>x = 5\,</math>

As one gets more skillful at these kinds of manipulations, one can handle more complex problems. A typical case involves an equation in which the unknown appears in more than one place. After stripping away as many operations as we can, we might be left with something like:
::<math>3 \times x + 4 \times x = 56\,</math>
At this point we use the ''distributive law'', along with the principle that
::The various laws of mathematics (commutative, associative, distributive) work even when the items appearing in the expressions are unknowns.
The distributive law tells us that
::<math>3 \times x + 4 \times x = (3+4) \times x\,</math>
so we get
::<math>(3+4) \times x = 56\,</math>
and hence x=8. You can plug x=8 into <math>3 \times x + 4 \times x\,</math> and see that the result is 24+32, or 56.

==Polynomial Manipulations==
As one's proficiency increases, one can handle increasingly complicated equations. The next step involves things like this:
::<math>\frac{x^2 - 8 x + 15}{x-3} = 7\,</math>
This can be solved if one knows that
::<math>(x-3) \times (x-5) = x^2 - 8 x + 15\,</math>
so
::<math>\frac{x^2 - 8 x + 15}{x-3} = x-5\,</math>
from which one gets x=12.

This was just a case of the principle that you can perform arithmetic operations even when the expression contain unknowns. In this case we were actually applying the distributive law 3 times.
::<math>(x-3) \times (x-5) = (x) \times (x-5) + (-3) \times (x-5) = (x) \times (x) + (x) \times (-5) + (-3) \times (x) + (-3) \times (-5)\,</math>
When we multiply the sum of two things times the sum of two things, we get the sum of four things. This is an extremely common operation, and there is a mnemonic for it—"FOIL"—which stands for "first, outside, inside, last". We multiply the first item in each parenthesized expression; that's x times x. We multiply the "outside" items; that's x times -5. The "inside" items are -3 times x, and the "last" items are -3 times -5.

This same principle applies when there are more than two items in each factor; it just doesn't have a useful mnemonic word. Each term in the first factor (first parenthesized expression) get multiplied by each term in the second factor, and all the products are added up.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Public schools in the United States

2011-09-11T00:28:07Z

Laroseblanche: /* So-called "character education" */

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Because of violence, vandalism, and other undesirable elements, this public school has a glaring sign warning of the on-campus surveillance cameras at its parking lot entrance.]]
[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> [[Homosexual Agenda|Homosexual indoctrination]] is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref> The failures of underperforming public schools are paradigm of [[socialism]], along with [[landfills]] and the [[Canada|Canadian]] healthcare system.

The following are characteristics of public schools:

*30% of public school students fail to graduate from [[high school]],<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more than 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%.<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% of students leave high school unqualified to attend four-year college.<ref name="graduate"/>
*A 2007 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 77% of students between eighth and 12th grade had used illicit drugs.<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002]</ref> Fatal overdoses are common but underreported.<ref>Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref> Public schools are required to present [[Drug education|drug "education"]] to kids.
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*About half of the viable pregnancies among girls attending public school end in [[abortion|abortions]] and about half end in birth. Public schools "[[Sex education|educate]]" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame [to [[teenage pregnancy]]]," the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% of students had been dangerously "[[binge drinking]]" in the previous 30 days, and 50% of seniors regularly drink illegally, according to a 2007 study of Ottawa County, Michigan.<ref>The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press: Ottawa County confronts teen drinking, By Greg Chandler, December 04, 2008[http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_county_confronts_teen_d.html]</ref><ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% of students become [[Addiction|addicted]] to [[cigarettes]]<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*35% of students are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Health screening of public schools in Memphis, Tennessee, found that nearly 10% of students have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>.
*More than 10% of public high schools have a [[Homosexual Agenda|pro-homosexual]] student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the [[Bible]], even as [[Bible history|history]] and literature
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_california_broken_schools/2009/06/21/227552.html High-Spending California School System Collapsing] AP, June 21, 2009</ref>

==History==

===United States===

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

===United Kingdom===
In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others. The term public was used because the school was open to all public applicants, albeit ones that could afford to pay the fees. The UK equivalent of US public schools are called state schools which provide education for free to all pupils.

The first UK state school, Beverley Grammar School, was founded in 700AD. Despite the fact that around 90% of UK children are educated at one, some state schools are looked down upon due to poor test results and bullying. Recently many of the worst schools have opted to become [[Academy|Academies]] which receive public and private money and must accept local children but are more free to set their own wages<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/nov/13/newschools.schools</ref>.

Many UK state schools, particularly Primary (Elementary) schools are Christian schools and have daily prayers and hymns at the beginning of the day. Over 1 million children in Britain attend schools connected with the [[Church of England]]. Such schools are funded by the government but attached to churches and as such, the children visit church at least once a week during school time for a service where they pray together and receive blessings. Church schools are recognised for their distinctive Christian ethos and the impact this has on standards and all round education. The proportions of Church schools regarded as 'outstanding' (by Ofsted) is much higher than the national norm and yet the Church schools are fully inclusive. <ref>http://www.churchofengland.org/education/church-schools-academies.aspx</ref>

==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we Mr. Schlalfy is a closet homosexual who really REALLY wants to suck the cock of Barack Hussein Obama, because the idea of a powerful black man makes his vagina quite wet. "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref>

=== Prayer ===

:''See also: [[Classroom prayer]]''

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] stated, "Nothing in the [[First Amendment]] converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
:''See also: [[Textbook bias]]''

[[Textbook]]s (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal bias]] exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—[[marriage]], [[religion]], [[politics]], and [[business]]. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread [[secular]] and [[liberal]] mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the [[University of Dayton]], wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the [[Founding Fathers]] wanted a "wall of [[Separation of church and state|separation" between church and state]], that "[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] only because he needed [[Black Soldiers in the Civil War|black soldiers]]", and that "[[Mikhail Gorbachev]], not [[Ronald Reagan]], was responsible for ending the [[Cold War]]". <ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

===Non-Dismissal of Tenured Teachers===
Due to the strength of the nation's teachers' [[Labor union|union]], it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with [[tenure]]. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest [[school district]], Los Angeles Unified School district]]

==Graduates==
=== Before 1962 ===
Given that public schools educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962. Here is an impressive list of prominent Americans who attended public schools ''before'' the banning of prayer.

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

=== After 1962 ===
Here is a mostly unimpressive list of people who attended public school ''after'' prayer was banned in 1962:

*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981; dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*[[John Sununu]], former one-term Senator from [[New Hampshire]], graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's;<ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html</ref> claiming to be [[pro-life]], Sununu arranged for the nomination of [[David Souter]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], where he then repeatedly voted on the side of [[abortion]]
*[[John Edwards]], indicted in 2011 on allegations arising from his affair with a mistress, was a former one-term Senator from [[North Carolina]] and two-time unsuccessful candidate for nomination for president, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*[[Spike Lee]], producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Laura Bush]] attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964); came out in support of [[gay marriage]] and [[abortion]] in 2010.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/laura-bush-supports-gay-marriage-abortion/story?id=10629213</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964, and became the only president impeached in the 20th century.
*Anthony Weiner, a congressman who resigned in disgrace in 2011 after first denying but then confirming an indecent use of [[Twitter]], graduated from a public high school in [[Brooklyn]].
*[[Steve Jobs]], founder of [[Apple Inc.]], graduated from Homestead High School in Cupertino, CA in 1972; his colleague, [[Steve Wozniak]], graduated from the same high school in 1968.
*[[Eminem]], a [[liberal]] [[rapper]], repeatedly failed 9th grade in public school and ultimately dropped out.
*[[Alan Colmes]], a liberal news commentator, attended public school in [[New York City]].
*[[Sarah Palin]], vice presidential candidate on the [[Republican Party]] ticket in 2008 and favorite of some [[Tea Party]] groups, went to [[Wasilla High School]] and graduated in 1982 and then attended 5 different colleges before becoming more [[conservative]] later in life.<ref>http://outhouserag.typepad.com/outhouserag/2008/09/sarah-palin-198.html</ref>

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

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]
*[[Atheism and public schools]]
*[[Parental rights]] (focusing on the rights of parents to control the education, upbringing and disclipline of their children)

[[category:Schools]]
[[category:United States History]]
{{Liberalism}}

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2011-06-04T02:36:32Z

Laroseblanche: /* Worse */

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

As time goes on, games have gotten less and less difficult and more focused on fancy explosions and whatnot. To prove my point about difficulty, I strongly suggest you go play Super Ghouls and Goblins. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I think as a whole that video games are getting worse, although there are still some great ones like Dead Space, Bioshock, Halo, etc. For me, old games had a certain "charm" to them; they were simpler programs and yet the game was more complicated for the most part. The Marathon series, made in the 1990's, is a perfect example. It beats COD any day.

==Better==
Yes! Games are getting better. Games have recently become whole new worlds capable of an insane level of intricate awesomeness. Let's give some examples; I own a PC and 360 and frequently play both (except when the 360's out for repairs, like now. Don't snicker, Wii owners.) Now, as for the new possibilities available to game developers, I've got 4 really good examples. First off is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Oblivion has a fully realized, 16 square mile world with an intricate system of quests, a functioning legal system (albeit a bit rudimentary and arbitrary), and a whole host of options. Really want that shiny new elven sword but can't afford it? 5 fingers discount, if you happen to have the skill and be willing to risk the punishments of being caught. But then there are two other genre defining games, that move gaming from entertainment to grand story-telling. Next is Bioshock. In Bioshock, you crash-land in the middle of an underwater city named Rapture, where "Where the artist will not fear the censor, and the scientist will not be constrained by petty morality." And if that made you shudder, good - because Rapture has pretty much literally gone to hell. The rest of the game is spent discovering who you are, what happened to Rapture, and who a whole cast of characters were before Rapture's descent into chaos. And all of this is done while repeatedly forcing you into moral dilemmas and making you question the nature of being human. Third on my must-play list is Portal. Yes, the cake is a lie. An deceptively simple-looking puzzle game with a great soundtrack, and the best plot with 3 characters. Fourth on my list is a game I've just recently been playing, that takes huge advantage of new graphics and sound technologies. Audiosurf is available on Steam for $10 - I have no idea if it's sold elsewhere. Anyways, it lets you choose a song and creates a rhythm game from that song - all the parts of the level are generated from the song's beats. It's addictive, fun, cheap and easy to learn. Whoah. Wrote a lot without meaning to. Sorry. Time to start wrapping up: Newer graphics and sound technologies are unlocking whole new possibilities. Games can tell complex, epic stories, or allow you to do whatever you want. They can adjust themselves completely to your tastes, or they can let you play against a friend whenever, wherever. And all of this is good. But shineyz are hardly a replacement for good old ingenuity.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 11:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. At least for me. Personally, I think that the first games where made to have fun, and to just be "somewhere else". The games these days certainly aren't lacking in that. =D And I also agree with Hacker on his/her point as well - what is easily won doesn't give the same satisfaction as what takes work (or something to that effect). [[User:TaintedInnocence|TaintedInnocence]] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

'''Better''' Games are definetly getting better as technology increases. I will give an example, and a response to an the first comment on this page. Look at the Wii, games are requiring more skill and at the same time are easier to pick up. In response to the first comment on this page, games are requiring more and more hand-eye coordination. Just because its harder doesn't mean its worse. In the past, games were easy three button affiars. Now, playing a game trains your brain and hands to work together, and you forced to think more and learn more in order to beat a game. In Halo, the best players are the smartest, not always the fastest. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. I play sports games, and I've found it pretty obvious that ESPN College Hoops 2K5 for my PS2 is far better than March Madness 2001 for my PS1. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, allright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest comodoty. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:Recently, a study showed that surgeons who played video games had better hand-eye coordination than those who did not. Here's the link [http://www.webmd.com/content/article/132/118223?src=RSS_PUBLIC]. So apparently not a total waste of time. Also, like movies and books, games provide something to talk about and a forum for socialization. Why are group online games any worse than offline group card games (the ones using old fashioned paper cards) or board games? There's no reason the whole family couldn't theoretically participate if there is more than one computer in the household connected to the net. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 16:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

== /debate ==
Video games are moving, or have moved, from mindless entertainment into storytelling mediums. Just look at games such as the Metal Gear Solid, FEAR, System Shock, or Deus Ex series.
/debate. --[[User:GaussRifleGrunt|GaussRifleGrunt]] 13:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. The best ones have constructive and creative elements, like my favorite, the Sims 2. When the graphics improved, EA games also replaced the make baby scene with a cinematic so that the T for Teen rating could be maintained, and to discourage fan-made pornographic elements. (All one sees is a couple lumps under the covers plus fireworks.)Most of the game is similar to a virtual dollhouse, and the Sims are the "dolls", but with specific needs and aspirations. A lot of creativity is used in creating the Sims, building and furnishing their houses and venues, and making up stories about them. Best of all, the game is non-violent. I like the Simcity series for much the same reasons. Casual games (like match-3, multitasking and hidden object games) are also becoming more and more popular, though they don't require the latest graphics they do have the advantage of playing well on notebook computers. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 16:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree too. A good game has a good storyline AND good graphics. Without either, it is a crappy game. Not to say I wouldn't go back and play Final Fantasy VIII on the original Playstation, but it does mean I will refuse to play a game developed on a current console system with such generational graphics. It is pathetic to accept a crappy product. [[User:ARX3000|ARX3000]] 10:39, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2011-06-04T02:29:12Z

Laroseblanche: /* "The Gays" */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Example Questions and Topics ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Curious About... ==

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

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

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

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

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==new question==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Unclear questions==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Another question==

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

==More questions==

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

==A thought==

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

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

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

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

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

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

=="The Gays"==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

You are absolutely right King, though the practice may be morally wrong. I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with the Olympics, many other countries don't have the same attitude about gay marriage as the U.S. does.

Talk:Ann Coulter

2011-06-04T02:16:40Z

Laroseblanche:

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== silly Coulter ==
Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

==M. Stanton Evans==
Good quote from Coulter on [[M. Stanton Evans]] new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''." [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824] We just need a place to put it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Hatred ==

Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

''Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]''

*Liberals = intolerant attacks
*Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

: That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for '''I hate it when people ...''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

::::: My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Christian Crusading], [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml?source=mostpop_story Anti-Semitic statements], and [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp Anti-Islamic sentiments]. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

:::::: The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

== Isn't Coulter pro-choice? ==

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== First "Reference" ==

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:I added the refs [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
:::Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::::Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now ''adds'' to the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Opinion ==

The following paragraph needs some work:
:<nowiki>Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>
I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:<nowiki>As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered "offensive" <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref></nowiki>

:How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==

::Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==Feigning offence==
What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am not the one saying "I dare you! Then I'll show you!" Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone "feigns it" and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be "trustworthy"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by [[liberals]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Hm. AdenJ is currently... "away", but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:
:::*"Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
:::**Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...
:::*"Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."
:::**See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...
:::*"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned."
:::**Of course, women will only ''feign'' being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!
:::And how about some of her book titles?
:::*Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)
:::*Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)
:::*How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)
:::*If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)
:::Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Huh. I... see. Thanks for clarifying this quite... unique view of liberals. [frowns] --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ??? Your statement is incoherent. Are pretending that [[liberals]] don't deny they are [[liberals]]? Check out the comments of [[Hillary Clinton]] and scores of posters here, perhaps including yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::??? Are you saying that I'm a liberal? What do you base this on? Your [[political identification bias]], maybe? I certainly didn't give you any hint of my political affiliation other than disagreeing with you. Classic case, I would say.
:::::::It's typical conservative style to label any posting as "incoherent", and if there was such an article here, I would add it as the new number 1 entry. ;)
:::::::If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words and simply cite a webcomic: "Dude, see this huge sweat-drop? It means I'm totally grossed out." - Oh, and don't pretend to be offended by this post. I know you'd just be feigning it to score points in this discussion, just like you know that no liberal is genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks.
:::::::But hey, your site, your wikiality. If you want to claim that no liberal is offended by being called a lying traitor, then you can obviously do so. [shrug] I at first assumed that this was some odd misunderstanding, but your post clarified the position to the degree that I know that my best move is to disengage. Which I tried to do, before you called my post "incoherent". Let's hope that this second attempt will be more fruitful. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:58, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

* [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]: Comments like ''If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words'' are out of place here. Kindly confine your comments to discussion of how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::So my comparably tame remark is a personal remark, but nobody will be genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks? What if I claimed that you and Aschlafly are only feigning it to silence me? How would you prove me wrong?
::Also, please note that I only made that remark after Aschlafly labeled my post "incoherent", which I found quite insulting. Or how about Aschlafly implicitly labeling me as a liberal, based on nothing other than him disagreeing with me? I accept your warning (and I already said that I was retreating and disengaging, once implicitly and once explicitly), but I must protest against the fact that ''only I'' receive one. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 11:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I had written an earlier version which I though was fairly neutral (see a section above, HelpJazz condoned it). But in light of the view that... "''No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.''" ...I think I'll just step away. I... don't understand how it can be claimed that one would not be offended by such comments as JBrown listed, I certainly would be (perhaps, I have a slightly different interpretation of "offense"?). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: Some liberals claim they are offended by a prayer that simply thanks God. Does you think that really offends them? I don't. Claiming offense is an effective way to demand censorship, or try to ostracize someone and drive her off television. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::Well, no, I don't think so either. A prayer thanking God does not insult, criticize or even address the "offended" party, so I think you're quite right when you say liberals are feigning offense in such a case. However, the comments listed above directly attack liberals, so I would not be surprised if there was in fact some genuine offense taken. Wouldn't you be at all offended if someone said such things about you? ''"traitors or idiots", "lie constantly", "motivated by Stalin"...'' If not, I'll assume that I am understanding "offense" differently.

::Now I'm not saying she's wrong, or that she should have to censor herself at all, but is it really that unbelievable that someone could be offended by such comments? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I think this question has credibility. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 18:34, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt that people who claim they are offended by Ann Coulter really are offended by her. Rather, I think they want to censor her, and feign offense as tool of censorship. We see similar tactics used against pro-lifers, people who pray, and people who criticize homosexual lifestyles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks." OK, so if someone, say Ward Churchill, said that all conservatives were rascist fear-mongers (and maybe he has), would that be equally inoffensive, because it was just a general remark?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: Conservatives do not feign offense as liberals do. Conservatives believe in honesty. Try it and you'll set yourself free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::It would be nice if that were true, but I received a one-week block in September for posting something truthful about Sarah Palin on her article's Talk Page. My edit there was accused of being a false liberal smear, and I responded by researching the topicc, finding the evidence and posting the ''truth'' as a response. The truth in this case was not flattering to Palin, and while no one could deny it was the truth, it was considered ''inapropriate'' - I was then blocked for a week and the comments & supporting evidence were removed from the Talk page. My comments were about policy changes that took place in Wasilla as a result of her becoming mayor, so they were entirely relevant and appropriate once I had established that they were truthful. If you really mean what you say about Conservatives believing in honesty, will you allow me to post my findings and supporting evidence on the Palin page since even my blocker conceded their truthful nature? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Part of the below post comes from something I wrote in a different section, but it applies here I believe:

As suggested by the above theses pertaining to feigning offence, I think most people--liberals and various republicans included--do fake being upset by Coulter. However, Coulter herself may well be acting or hyperbolizing when she says the things that "anger" others and as such, neither we nor she should be that surprised when people "act" in response. It's all about taliation. Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed.

All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. [[User:Acwellman]]

:: To summarize, you're saying that those targeted by Coulter's comments feign offense as a form of censorship (which is valid, but seems like it would be hard to prove), but then you argue that there are people who are offended and are not acting in retaliation - fellow conservatives, who actually turn away from the ideology itself. I'm confused. [[User:Limbo]]

The point I'm trying to make is that Coulter is often overstated and hyperbolic in her attacks, thus it would seem logical that those on the receiving ends of those attacks would feign their offence. Honestly, I think Coulter has put herself in a position where a lot of people won't and don't take her very seriously, so they feign offence as a sort of sarcastic "tip of the hat" to her. I agree that many people on this website might proactively agree with her, but then again (judging by comments made above) many also don't. The Conservapedia readership represents such a small demographic of the population and doesn't accurately represent overall views held of Ms. Coulter. As for turning Republicans against their own party, look at how much more liberal a guy like...say...Tucker Carlson has gotten in the last few years. At any rate, all just observations... [[User:AcWellman]]

:: My point is this: either people feign offense (and are NOT offended) or they aren't. If people are turning away from the party in part due to her, then they're offended. If people are pretending to be offended, and turning away from their own party is a "sarcastic 'tip of the hat,'" then they are feigning offense. I think I see what you're saying, but I can't really say I agree. I don't think that people really feel she's in any way credible or relevant. She's the opposite of Bill Maher. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:43, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough, Limbo. But, how then do you explain the act of throwing pies in her face? Do you actually throw a pie at someone who has genuinely offended you? I would say that the act of throwing a pie at someone's face is more on par with a comedy act than it is an act of animosity designed to retaliate against someone who has genuinely offended you. I think that trying to set this whole "feigning offence" thing up as a binary arrangement (people are either genuinely offended or they fake their offence) is a bit anachronistic. As is the case with most things in life there is, indeed, a middle ground here...I am sure that she has truly offended some people but others just find her outlandish nature, dirty and hateful that it may be, to be so overstated that it's just plain funny. I am one of the latter; I laugh at her like I laugh at Family Guy...if that makes sense.

== Not a big fan (remark) ==

''Frankly, I don't see why Ann Coulter's contempt for the First Amendment is being reverted''

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005 http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php

Why is this being reverted? She said it, it's factual, informative, and goes to the heart of who she is. The Bill of Rights is an amazing pillar of American Freedom. Conservapedia, and a million other sources of information might not even exist without it. If she has such contempt for the Constitution of the United States, why not say so? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 11:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: The links did not work; no way to see the information is accurate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know about the links, I'm no HTML expert, but this URL will get you there. http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 11:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Thanks, I was able to figure out how to make the link work. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 12:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: The article does not say that she has contempt for the 1A, or explain the context for the quote. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:45, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

: Fair enough. She said she is not a big fan of the First Amendment. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 12:48, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::You'd hang someone for saying she is 'not a big fan of ' something? She may be a medium fan, or no fan at all. The quote is so vague that it does not merit inclusion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:01, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, I would, especially because: 1. We are not talking about being "a big fan" of some silly movie here, we are talking about the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Freedom and should never be taken lightly especially by those who profess to be protecting American Freedom. 3. Any prominent liberal who said this would be burned alive in this forum. 4. My attempts to include the context for Obama's not wearing a flag pin were reverted. 5. Truth is truth and fairness is fairness, and including or excluding certain facts in order to bias an article is deceit whether commited by a conservative or a liberal. John 8:32 [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 13:18, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Coulter's point is obvious: she's not a "big fan" of how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts. Coulter is not attacking the Bill of Rights as originally understood in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::::{{quotebox|She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment. "They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them." She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." }}

::::Where does she talk about the courts? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Where does she talk about the courts? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 13:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Here is the (partial) context of the remark:

:She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

:"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

:She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

The question, obviously, is what she meant by this. She '''might''' have meant that she wants to suppress the speech of everyone who contradicts her; but based on my reading of 3 of her books I find that impossible to believe.

It's more likely that she was making a satirical point. We could email her for a clarification, if necessary, but what she probably means is that she opposes the abuse of the First Amendment.

Writers, be careful not to make ideological edits; i.e., do not add anything to an article which promotes your ideology in an illegitimate way, such as [[out of context]] quotation or [[quote mining]]. Don't copy the strategy of ''[[Bushisms]]'', the anti-George Bush book which collects as many "damaging quotes" as possible with the aim of making him look stupid.

You may, of course, report truthfully that '''a certain published author''' or other prominent person made an argument about Ann Coulter, based on a 10-word quotation from a lengthy speech. That's not an ideological edit; that's reporting someone's viewpoint.

In general, avoid unattributed views, implications, and insinuations. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Is she Christian?==

I mean, does she consider herself Christian? Because as one, it seems to me that none of her actions ever revolve around philosophies like, "judge lest not ye be judged", or "turn the other cheek", which are fundamental teachings of Christ (as in, '''Christ'''ian). I can't believe that she says any of this except to get a rise out of people, but then why is she so...egrandized in this article? Why would we compare her to Condoleeza Rice, when this is someone who just talks, and talks of horrible things? She doesn't actually do anything! She just takes Nazi quotes and replaces "Juden" with "liberal" and presto, idiocy. Why isn't this someone who we're trying to amputate from the conservative movement, why is this someone we regard highly and compare to the '''mother''' of this site's founder? IS THIS WHAT THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT? [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 17:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Some Responses:
The only comparison being made between Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly is that they are both high profile conservatives--that's as far as the parallel goes. There's a whole lot of bipartisan speculation as to Coulter's religious beliefs and, believe it or not, her political allegiance. As suggested by the above (and Otherside, this is assuming you are a Republican) Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed.

From a religious standpoint, Coulter has definitely been engaged more than once (I believe 3 times, but don't quote me on that) yet still identifies herself as a Christian. Given that Holy Matrimony is one of the most sacred aspects of Christianity, it would seem that breaking a marital engagement would be tantamount to betraying what something like marriage stands for. I agree with OtherSide--Coulter can freely dish out criticism but she really has a tough time receiving it...

All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. [[User:Acwellman]]

Ann Coulter, by her own behavior and well-documented statements, is about as Christian as Attila the Hun. A person of her level of outrageous offensiveness does more to hurt the conservative cause than any liberal could ever do. That Andy Schlafly abuses his power to shield her from criticism is a sad indicator of his political blindness deeming it acceptable to demonize people with whom you politically disagree in as vicious terms as possible, and to distort facts to suit your own agenda. Why do people like the runners of this website not see that this is not the effective way to promote conservatism?? By demonizing everyone else, and even accusing fellow conservatives who disagree with you on specific issues of being secret liberals?
This website is run like a Nazi dictatorship, with Andy and his ass-kissing moderators deciding what truth and reality are.

[[User:RMusgrave]]

:I just finished reading ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror''; I vote it should be made the 28th Book in the New Testament (Ye shall know the truth and truth shall set you free). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:33, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

::I'm glad to see someone else enjoyed her books. I think Godless: The Church of Liberalism should be taught in schools. Maybe to counter some of the liberal indoctrination that goes on there. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:12, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

==Style and substance==

Ann Coulter makes many good points, and she frequently nails liberals to the wall with deadly accuracy. She also sometimes answers liberals in their own coin, making a remark just as outrageous as the worst of theirs.

Liberals have slandered her for this, pretending that her outrageous zingers are the only thing she ever says or writes. Hence, the frequently made attack on her, "Does she believe what she says?" This is simply [[character assassination]] in service of an ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument, because they have no answer to the substance of her arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:03, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:You're referring to Sholto Byrnes of the ''Independent [U.K.]''? I think Coulter's jokes are just too deep for him. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::Thanks for telling me about the book dates. I didn't check those but rather undid all your contribs since Aschlafly. You had slanted the article against Coulter, using the typical liberal slander: i.e., that she's just as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent she has criticized.

::If that is your point, just say so - and quote your source. Don't use encyclopedia articles to [[make a case]] - Wikipedia calls that [[original research]], we call it [[bias]].

::Please submit a [[writing plan]] for this article, because a lot of what you said about the [[Paula Jones]] case is valuable. Just stop using it to tear down Coulter, and it can all go back in. Can you do that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 13 January 2010 (EST)

:::No that wasn't my intention at all. Like I said in the Statements section, she makes controversial statements and admits doing so; out of context, they may seem inappropriate, in context they are found to prove a point about the harmful or foolish activities of her targets. I wouldn't necessarily mention the statements I used, but they were included by another Conservapedia contributor in the quotes section, so instead of kicking them out the back door, I confronted them directly. My first response was to undo the damage the out-of-context quotes may have caused by providing context.

:::Likewise, my coverage of the name-calling of John Edwards. Can you tell me anywhere on the internet of any news report where Coulter's minor use of a schoolyard taunt to prove a point about the censorship of criticizing gays was weighed against the prior months of intermittent harassment she received ''from'' persons apparently preoccupied with promoting some gay agenda at her speeches? And that after she had already stated she was not interested in the gay rights issues for or against?

:::As it stands in the original version, the material that she is "as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent" is still present in the quotes section and the footnotes. In my version it states that her confidence in making statements found to be controversial is "vindicated later by a rehearsal of the facts available to conscientious scrutinizers of the content of her speech," and then one example case is explained--the quote she came up with on the spot in order to change the subject of her would-be interviewers back to her book, and her later use of that quote to point out the activities of the ''New York Times'' were dangerous to United States national security.

:::Before I began writing for this article, I spoke to an administrator named [[User:TK]] whom I asked if I could move the material I wrote for the Wikipedia article over to Conservapedia. He saw the Paula Jones section which I wrote and then asked me to proceed. Could we please consult with him before removing my sections entirely? I agree that my writing isn't perfect, but I think it has to do with clarity rather than any kind of issue of fairness. Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:11, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Anti-Christian Beliefs?
A lot of her debates and speeches on war seem to be Anti-Christian... is she a real Christian? What do you think?