Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:JoshuaZ

2007-05-14T02:01:09Z

Livingston: /* Origins debate */

I find that it's fun working on a Wiki-based encyclopedia that's at such an early stage that it's still easy to make changes and additions, confident that they are actually improvements. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Any Idea why you can't see the references at the bottom of the examples of bias page? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:20, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Good job on the [[Creationism]] page. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Why do you and Dpbsmith keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:22, 14 February 2007 (EST)

A: Actually conservapedia was not started to "have a wiki that Christian homeschooled students could edit without them being exposed to anything their parents didn't want them exposed to." It was started to have an encyclopedic website (it actually didn't start as a wiki) that did not have the liberal bias of wikipedia. B: The Users of Conservapedia are not limited to the students of A Schlafly, and most of the students are highschoolers. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

: There may been some miscommunication here then. For example, [[Conservapedia:About]] mentions it starting as "as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students" and my impression was that part of the reason for the third Conservapedia commandment was due to the presence of such students. It is possible that I have been misinformed about their general age. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:47, 14 February 2007 (EST)

::It was my mistake. The original article in Wikipedia used the word "teenagers." I'm not sure how I got the notion that it was middle-school age, rather than high school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

== "woefully inaccurate" ==

If you think certain articles are "woefully inaccurate on Conservapedia" by all means improve them. We do not want to scare people from editing this site as Wikipedia does. Please just try to keep your edits neutral... if you want to debate or discuss something then post it in the pages "Talk" page or make a debate topic. thanks - [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:37, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:Oh dear, to see you here. What about [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]? [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 00:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[Real numbers]]==
Despite my snarky edit comment, I'd welcome your giving this a look. I'm trying to make it more understandable to an audience of non-college-math-majors without I hope saying anything terribly inaccurate.

Is there any name for the logical and historical ''progression'' by which you start with positive integers, add zero out of a desire to solve the equation n + x = n, add the negative numbers out of desire to close the um, set, field, whazzit under subtraction, add the fractions out of a desire to close it with respect to division, add the irrationals and transcendentals out of a desire to close it with respect to (what?) (to duplicate the cube?) (to get a one-to-one correspondence with the points on a line?), add the imaginaries and complex numbers out of a desire to have solutions for all polynomials?

And where, exactly, do the infinities fit in _in mathematics?_ I love how IEEE-784 floating-point arithmetic handles them; it has +INF and -INF which do what I expect, and NaN (Not a Number) which also up where I expect it... 1/0 = +INF, but 0/0 = NaN, not INF. INF and -INF participate happily in further operations. INF + 42 yields INF, and so forth. INF + INF yields INF. However, INF - INF, or INF + (-INF) yield NaN. There must be something like this in mathematics, but they weren't teaching it when I was learning it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:10, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==[[Talk:Homosexuality]]==
See my own remarks on the sentence containing the phrase "extremely clear." (As you can see, I personally would have settled for dropping the word "extremely.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== CreationWiki and quotes and Theory of Evolution article ==

Thanks for your concern, however, I did not first read the quotes from CreationWiki. So there are no copyright issues. However, I did find the extensive list of CreationWiki quotes on the fossil record useful to Conservapedians so I did include a appropriate link to that material. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

::I put sources. Two of my original sources were not easily availiable (lots of websites with the same quote and a defunct website) so I used the CreationWiki as a source since the publication info was extensive so readers can easily find the quotes original sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

== Re: Additional commentary on the Theory of Evolution talk page ==

Two commnents:

1. I believe I did respond adequately previously.

2. I have some time sensitive matters I have to attend so further commentary may not becoming soon should I change my mind regarding this matter.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:49, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

::I read the additional commentary to the talk page and I believe I can respond to your comments quickly. 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:::I was hoping to respond to your criticism quickly but unfortunately I have to go. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative

== Thanks for the support ==

I was about to send a message myself, but saw that you had beaten me to it.
--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 09:24, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Somehow however, I have the feeling that we will not accomplish much here...--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 03:33, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== YEC article ==

I saw your [[Young Earth Creationism]] (YEC) article. You created a section in the article for scientists criticisms of the YEC position but you failed to create material in the article which gave scientists arguments for a young earth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

==Blocked==
It seems [[User:Conservative]] unilaterallty blocked you for 3 months(!), and without even the courtesy of a warning or an opportunity to address whatever he found objectionable. His doing so strikes me as a conflict of interest since you two were apparently debating that article's direction. Also, there is absolutely no infraction worthy of a block, not to mention one for 3 months, on your part that I can find. Since it's so clearly an abuse of his admin privileges I'm confident the management here, particularly [[User:Aschlafly]], won't stand for this sort of abuse of power. I hope this incident isn't indicative of how simple content disputes will be handled here and I look forward to soon seeing your sensible contributions and comments here again. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 13:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== RE: citation ==

You wrote: In regard to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Theory_of_Evolution&curid=3327&diff=17398&oldid=17394], that amounts to changing the citation which is problematic in the extreme, especially if you have not read the original. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY: Reread the CreationWiki citation. Plus I have read another internet source which cites the same quote.
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== My CreationWiki material where CreationWiki provides quotes ==

The [[CreationWiki]] quotes I used do cite their sources which can be checked by clicking their respective CreationWiki links to their associated sources. I see no real issue here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Creationism ==

Sorry I have failed to address this issue so far. I am opting to retreat with my tail between my legs. I may return later. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 04:59, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Bonobos ==

Thanks for helping out with the Bonobos article. I didn't realize that some of the words mignt be too explicit. I had hoped that I used them in a clinical sense. The same words are used at the National Review and NARTH sites.

== Albert Einstein ==

Oh I didn't realize that. Thank you. The person replaced information you removed without providing references. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 16:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:How do you unblock users? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Conservative ==

If you're not conservative "by most definitions of the word", then you're not conservative at all. There are no other definitions. Oh, and why don't you tell us ''why'' you think that those articles that you listed on your page are "woefully inaccurate"? Are they inaccurate because they don't agree with your worldview? Get over it! [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 23:03, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:BTW, labelling creationists and Christians in general as "fascists" and accusing them of "the destruction of core values of the open society—the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions ... to challenge authority ... to accept that there are other views, different ways of being, taht are morally and socially acceptable." (Chris Hedges, ''American Fascists—The Christian Right and the War on America'') doesn't do your side any credit, JoshuaZ. It's quite obvious just from reading their site and books by them or just by talking to them that this is NOT their goal. It's not as if evolutionists are training kids to think for themselves and draw independent conclusions by indoctrinating them with evolution and saying that creation is absolutely for-sure wrong! Not to mention the part about challenging authority; the Bible ''encourages'' submission to authority. This is an embarrassment to you and the rest of the liberal community (although there are millions of others). [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:47, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Responding on S's page. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Ann Coulter certainly is not an embarrassment to us. As for Michael Savage, I really don't know where he stands. He seems to be anti-liberal sometimes, but then later he praises theistic evolution, so really I think he's like John Kerry: wishy-washy. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Block times ==
This user may come back in year changed for the better, if not he will be infinitely blocked. This was for a pattern not just vandalism. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Re: Theistic evolution article ==

I made some comments on the theistic evolution article which I hope you found were reasonable. And no, I did not take the creationist side in this matter. I think I made both sides of the creo/evo issue unhappy but I did what I thought was necessary to insure a quality article was created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Help ==

You look like someone who knows what he is doing. I seek your advice on uploading a picture file. I do not seem able to do it. Do you know what might be the problem? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Not really. I suggest you talk to Dpbsmith. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: I've gotten a few errors uploading pics on this wiki. Sometimes it works sometimes you get an error. The last time I got an error I tried it again this time checking the box that says ignore all warnings. It worked after that but it could be a coincidence. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 19:59, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== re: your TE draft ==

Please see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theistic_Evolution/draft [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== TO: Josh, re: theistic evolution article ==

I don't have the time to read a lot of articles on the topic of "Theistic Evolution". However, I did briefly scan some articles and they did appear to be written by credible sources (for example, one article PHD after the authors name).

Please don't think I think these articles are necessarily good. I just want to create a starting point.

Please take a look at these articles:

Multiple source article with many quotes w/ sources: [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990]

Footnoted article: [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html]

ASA article Written by a PHD: [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm]

5 footnotes in article: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp]

I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Put the Pope material back in. Andy can take it out of the draft if he wants ==

Put the Pope material back in. Andy can take it out of the draft if he wants. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== question ==

I know that you are a Admin at Wikipedia and much more knowledgeable about where everything is at Wikipedia. Where does Wikipedia state that they want material written in a non-argumentative encyclopedic tone? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
: You will likely find what you are looking for at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone Fariness of tone subjection of Neutral point of view] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:: Mtur pointed you to the right place I think although other sections of the neutrality policy other than the Fairness of Tone section may be relevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Howdy! ==
Hehe thanks, I actually knew that but it was far away in my mind at the time :). I'm at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GofG] by the way. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Homosexual Agenda article ==

JoshuaZ, you need to take a look at the article on the [[homosexual agenda]]. I tried to make it unbiased, but it got reverted back & protected. Will you back me up in saying that where it's not outright offensive, it's at least biased?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Roman Catholic Church ==
''whether you like it or not, the vast majority of catholics accept V2 and the current pope''
: Such people are not Catholic, no matter how much they claim to be. Fact is, V2 is heretical, and B16 is a heretic. Both are condemned by the Catholic Church. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::No ''true'' Scotsman dislikes haggis... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it isn't. Since the people who abide by V2 are the current residents of Vatican City. As I asked before, who then is the temporal head of the Catholic Church?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

----

===Creationism definition===

Instead of going back and forth, why don't we let Administration decide?

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Because Aschafly doesn't "scale." As Conservapedia grows it will be less and less feasible to ask him to decide everything, so we might as well get used to working things out for ourselves. As a starting point, I'd suggest:

::cre·a·tion·ism, PRONUNCIATION: kr-sh-nzm, NOUN: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/C0734100.html American Heritage dictionary]

::cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1880, a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/creationism Merriam-Webster online]

:Dictionaries aren't perfect, and Aschlafly believes they're loaded with liberal bias, too, but dictionaries try to document how words are actually used, and if somebody wants to depart from a dictionary definition I think the burden is on them to justify it. And usually such a departure wouldn't be absolute. It would be something more along the lines of: state something like the dictionary definition, ''then'' state something like "However, within the creationist community, a more technical definition is preferred. The American Association of Creation Theorists, in its 1997 ''Handbook of Creationism,'' gives this definition," etc. etc.

:It's not fair to present a definition that goes beyond what is commonly understood by adding points that you personally believe ''ought'' to be understood.

:An analogy would be the word "carnivore," whose dictionary definition is meat-eating animal, but which has a technical definition in Zoology as members of the order ''Carnivora''" which include dogs, cats, and seals, but excludes many meat-eating mammals such as bats, humans, an marsupials... and excludes anything that is not a mammal. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I see that American Heritage gives what I call the technical definition as its second definition. Dictionaries are really very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Consider blocking [[User:CWilson|CWilson]] temporarily ==

For strange, repeated edits & reverts of the [[Earth]] article. Have a look yourself if curious.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

I am lobbying to have the evolution page openned up. Would you lend your voice to the cause? I started a topic ("Rallying point") on the Talk Theory of evolution page. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, is it really you? ==

Hooray! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Warning==

Be careful when filling out the Edit Summary. You said you were removing an incorrect statement here. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noah&diff=prev&oldid=129374] However:
#The statement you changed was already correct, and
#You removed valid and interesting information.

If you disagree with or do not understand something, you can use the talk page to start a discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 04:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scientists and the IPCC==

You said the scientists signed off on it. Did you mean that scientists gave their approval to the Summary for Policymakers of the latest UN assessment, the one which indicated 90% confidence in 50% of recent warming being anthropogenic?

If so, why not add a source to the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Your Back?==
Were did you go? Dude you were gone for like 4 months!! Well welcome back.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Edit conflict==

If this is still relevant [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_science&diff=147272&oldid=140556] after reading my long comment explaining my rollback, you can tack it on to the discussion page.

In the future, you might want to consider waiting a bit for an explanation before complaining. I was made a sysop for a reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:OOOOOOO Joshua you just got slammed!!! --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Only an [[idiot]] would think I was trying to take control of Joshua's user talk page. And only a [[moron]] would think I was calling Joshua an idiot! And only an [[imbecile]] would take the time to explain all this!! ;-)

ok....--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Origins debate]]==

Joshua, at [[talk:wombat]] you wrote:

:''Ed, so under that logic why did you leave in the creationist section? Heck, we should remove any mention of origins related issues from all articles. I'm not going to do that since I appreciate the point of a WP:POINT sort of guideline even if we dont have one here.''

Rather than conducting a proxy battle at each cute furry animal's article, why not address the issue head on? Any evidence for [[unguided evolution]] would be welcome at this encyclopedia, as far as I'm concerned.

Just don't stick it in the flagship article, [[Theory of evolution]]. Just as there are certain "owned" articles at Wikipedia (like ID) which require 'consensus' to be formed '''before''' edits are made, the same thing prevails here, like it or not (and I don't). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: As Phil observed, there are many different topics where these issues become relevant. In particular, where every furry animal came from is a bit relevant. Still, I'll take a look and consider modifying that article when I have time. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Constructive criticism is welcome. I still want one article comparing and contrasting Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, and unguided evolution (aka Darwin's [[Theory of evolution]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Any time anyone has tried that, even in their own ''talkspace'', Conservative has deleted it. If you want the links, i'll dig them up, but I think you remember the attempt to start a sandbox working group on this, and how it was slaughtered in Users' "castles" at conception.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 22:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Charity

2007-05-14T01:58:24Z

Livingston:

'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical.

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward God. This specific sense of [[agape]] is particular to Catholic theology. {{fact}}

==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*Christianity: the Catholic theologic sense is mentioned above. Most Christian faiths require practitioners to give of themselves as they are able. Mormons are usually said to require to donate 10% of their income to support the church and it's works.
*Islam: charity ('زكاة', 'zakat', in Arabic) is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion. A tithe of money (normally 10%) is given to help the poorest in society.
*Judaism: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''. The theology behind this is quite layered and complex.

For [[Libertarians]], charity is the choice of the individual, as any societal intervention must be voluntary, and based on the decision of the individual. It goes against Libertarian belief to tax people involuntarily and redistribute wealth as "charity".

Talk:Fascism

2007-05-11T20:53:58Z

Livingston:

Is anybody paying attention to this article? A liberal recently posted information which labels Conservapedia as fascist! We need to keep an eye on articles such as this. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Using "far-right" and "far-left" in reference to "state" in the first paragraph is not needed. And "far-left" makes no sense, since in the second paragraph Fascism is called the opposite of Communism, which is as far-left as you can get.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It should be noted that Nazism is different from Fascism. This article treats both terms as if they're synonymous. - [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]]

Since when was the swastika used for "mind control"? Also Mussolini hated Nazism, and Hitler made it clear that Nazism was not fascism. Therefore discussion of Nazism belongs in a seperate article, not one on fascism. Also most government types "impose social and economic regimentation". This isn't unique to fascism, or any ideology. America's Bill of Rights is a form of social regimentation. Also, this article treats fascism as just a type of government without fully explaining the ideology itself. This article talks more of Nazism and Communism than it does fascism. - [[User:mckennesaw|mckennesaw]]

If taken as stated, facism is only different from structure oriented conservatism (citation: They did not wish to preserve the existing order), but not from what could also be claimed of value oriented conservatism (They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism.) -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:"structure oriented conservatism"? Nice try. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to define the "left" as anything other than "for change". Hitler was for change. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The last sentence (The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries) is not a well-supported or proven fact. Too close to an impression or an opinion. It should be deleted. -- [[User:Schifra|SchiFra]]
:Direct quote from Prof. Schlesinger. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Which European nations have significant Fascist influence? There are none which have fascist parties or fascist ideologies that are legal or bona fide.

There should definitely be a section on this page that explains some of fascism's key characteristics like collectivism, nationalism and the like. [[User:Conservawesome|Conservawesome]] 12:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Political spectrum==

Cut from article:

:Though fascism is generally considered to be an ideology of the extreme right, it has important differences from conventional [[conservatism]]: for example, fascists favor state-sponsored corporatism over the free market (though they are vehemently opposed to socialism). Fascists and conservatives have co-operated in many countries, but conservatives have clamped down on fascist movements in others (witness, for example, the fate of the Iron Guard in Romania). Mussolini himself started out on the political Left.

Calling fascism '''and''' conservatism "right-wing" adds nothing to the article. We need better definitinos of all three terms, before we can do anything like that.

We also need to be sure whether Fascism includes Nazism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

See also [[Fascism_Talk]]

Charity

2007-05-11T19:43:50Z

Livingston:

'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical.

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a Divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward God. This specific sense of ''agape'' is particular to Catholic theology.

==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*Christianity: the Catholic theologic sense is mentioned above. Most Christian faiths require practitioners to give of themselves as they are able. Mormons are usually said to require to donate 10% of their income to support the church and it's works.
*Sunni Islam: charity is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion.
*Judaism: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''. The theology behind this is quite layered and complex.

[[Libertarians]] struggle with the concept of charity, sometimes justifying it as a indirect form of acting in one's self-interest.

Charity

2007-05-11T19:41:02Z

Livingston:

'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical.

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a Divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward God. This specific sense of ''agape'' is particular to Catholic theology.

==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*Christianity:
*Sunni Islam: charity is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion.
*Judaism: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''.

[[Libertarians]] struggle with the concept of charity, sometimes justifying it as a indirect form of acting in one's self-interest.

Charity

2007-05-11T19:38:02Z

Livingston:

Talk:Wizard (fiction)

2007-05-11T00:34:38Z

Livingston: New page: Nicely done, but what happens to the Biblical refs? Someone will be unhappy.~~~

Nicely done, but what happens to the Biblical refs? Someone will be unhappy.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]]

Talk:Wizard

2007-05-11T00:22:11Z

Livingston:

Other nearby Leviticus laws:

''If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.'' Leviticus 20:9

''You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you'' Leviticus 20:25

''If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'' Leviticus 20:16

Please stop trying to add in wizards being anything but fictional, without some sort of valid reference.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I fail to see what any of these Bible quotes have to do with wizards. The simple fact is that it is expressly condemned in scripture and taken seriously by many people. If you have some kind of problem with the Bible, Conservapedia is not the place to go on about it.--[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 19:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually have no problem with Leviticus. I just wish to point out that a prohibition against what are now know to be fictional beings is not that interesting. Perhaps wizards were more of a problem then. The other phrases are to give context to the prohibition. Leviticus has lots of laws, and perhaps some people think they can pick and chose, others do not believe you can. If the commandments of Leviticus are to be taken seriously, you must also look at Leviticus 20:9.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Think of it like this: Why would God specifically warn us against something that was fictional?
:Just because wizards are a popular feature in fictional stories, it doesn't follow that wizards themselves are fictional. That's faulty logic, especially when we have God himself telling us they aren't! --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 07:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

When "wizards" are referred to in Lev. it is not the pointy-hatted, harry potter thing. It is people claiming to use magics and invoking pagan gods to perform "miracles". It is a way to protect the Isrealites from getting 1) sucked into paganism, and 2) ripped off by snake-oil salesmen.
Leave the text however you wish, but it looks simply silly.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 07:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 20:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because it kept being altered by people who think wizards are fictional.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 20:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Because some of this site's detractors keep vandalising it I guess. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 20:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it seems that some people kept trying to imply that wizards are fictional, so it was finally locked.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 20:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wizard

2007-05-11T00:06:06Z

Livingston:

Talk:Planned Parenthood

2007-05-10T23:57:01Z

Livingston: /* Remove */

[[Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive1]]

== Moved from my talk page ==

I raised the point that the [[Planned Parenthood]] article doesn't address the good things PP does. It's above, in the "terrorism" section. I consider that unresolved.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I suggest that you post a list on my user talk page of the 5 or 10 most important good things which [[Planned Parenthood]] does? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Replying to Ames, those exams are a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does, and it is not how it makes its money. Abortion is its money-maker. If you can support your claim in a meaningful way, then it could be added ''after'' the central activity of Planned Parenthood is explained. One doesn't emphasize that a tobacco company supports the arts without first explaining in detail how it profits from selling deadly cigarettes, targeting and addicting teenagers, exporting the stuff, etc. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For the vast majority of people who PP interacts with, their interactions are defined by well-care, not abortions. But, conceding the point ''arguendo'', if you think that the majority of an industry's actions should be viewed primarily, perhaps you agree that science should be treated the same way, with "mainstream" science portrayed first, and "creationistarianism," or whatever they call it these days, should be portrayed second. After all, you wouldn't want to insinuate that a group's minority dominated its perspective. Agreed? 
Anyways, though, the modern PP is much more of a sexual health advocacy group, [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/press-releases-5593.htm as seen here], most of their issues relate to sexual education et al, not abortion. I'm sure you have statistics to the contrary. Let's see them!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, mainstream science should not get a pass. It makes special claims which religions do not. Science not only claims to have 'the truth' (which each religion generally does, even on matters where it contradicts all other religions) - but it claims to do so in an intersubjectively accessible manner. That is, it freely submits all its claims to confirmation by others. The reproducibility of results is key. And [[falsifiability]] is another. It's like that Denzel Washington sub thriller, where it takes two officers' keys to open the same to get the missile launch codes.

:Where mainstream science fails -- and we all fail sometimes ("No one is perfect, no not one; all fall short ...") -- is when it stops allowing its findings to be scrutinized (see {{wp|scientific_data_witholding}} quick, before they delete it) and refuses to submit to any test capable of disproving the theory. The latter two points are hallmarks of [[Pseudoscience]], and no one likes the 'annoying revealer' unless they have enough sanity to be "dedicated to reality at all costs" ([[M. Scott Peck]]).

:Religion is based on faith and revelation, and therefore need not subject itself to scrutiny. To be polite, we should not run other people's religion through a wringer, especially if we're not willing to let our own political, social or scientific notions suffer the same scrutiny.

:In comparisons between science and religion, the [[burden of proof]] is on science, because of its special claim as mentioned above. Scienece says, "We have proved this". Religion humbly and meekly says, "Here is what we believe."

::Right... but surely you agree, based on the separate burdens of proof, that religious faith should not substitute for scientific proof.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: When someone presents their faith as science, they are allowing it to be rung through the ringer and also need to meet the requirements of falsifiability and reproducibility. There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what the Bible says and I believe that". However to say "This is what the Bible says and science is wrong because it doesn't match that" is implicitly subjecting that faith and revelation to the same standards as is demanded on science. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Better, but very bias ==

This article is too anti-planned parenthood. It focused only on negative things and needs to be fixed. Thanks.

Request that the quotes section be removed. This article is about Planned Parenthood, NOT Margaret Sanger. Therefore, having a bunch of random quotes that make her look like an idiot are NOT needed. What's the point? Is this telling us anything usefull or educational about Planned Parenthood? No, it is making the article look like crap.

== Logical fallacy alert ==

''Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.''

This is confusing correlation with causation. Minorities are mostly poor, and most abortions are by the poor. Therefor this particular paragraph is pretty much meaningless in the context. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[user:Conservative]]-ing of this article ==

'''''Hallmarks of [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] Edits'''''
# Text consisting largely block quotes with little analysis.
# Poor, confusing structure, resulting from lack of analysis and excessive division.
# Aggressive section titling.
# One-sided citation of authority with no balancing viewpoint.
# Protected Article.
Remind you of anything, dear reader? I think we all know whose article this is now, and why that's bad.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::AmesG regarding the veracity of one of his edits: "I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight. Just like how you approach science, [[user:Conservative|Conservative]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]

::Are you trying to pick a fight again AmesG? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== George Grant quote ==

Quote:

"Throughout the 200+ pages of this book Sanger called for the
elimination of "human weeds," for the cessation of charity, for the
segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the
sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[4]...

4. Grant, George. Grand Illusions
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), p. 55."

From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt

George Grant Footnote: Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilizations (New York: Brentano's, 1922), page 264.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I fail to see how that quote is relevant to '''Planned Parenthood'''. This is an entry on PP, not Sanger. If you want to talk about Sanger, do it on her entry, I can't argue with that. But to discredit an organization simply by attacking its founder borders on an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::: See the introduction to the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: I fear for what would be written on a hypothetical Britapedia if the same was to be applied there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:11, 5 April
:::See the quote regarding poor people. see the data which suggest they targeting of minorities according to the news organization . etc etc etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative2007 (EDT)

:I believe at the time she would have spoken it, the word "moron" was an actual medical term, not the pejorative it is today.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I forgot, Conservative. This is "your" article now so I should expect plenty of out-of-context quotes and irrelevant information. My bad; carry on. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Colin! sshhhh... sarcasm bad. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, Show me what quotes are out of context. Please don't claim without demonstrating. Secondly, how is the census data which strongly suggest they target minorities according to the news organization irrelevant? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." is taken out of context. Read what she's actually arguing there. While I may not agree with her, it's not the oh so horrible statement you portray it to be. Secondly, I never said anything about census data; getting a little defensive are we? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Colin, you should be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. You could present her arguments for her indefensible statements and you could personally pass out the Margaret Sanger awards each year. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Thank you for you ad hominem attack. I will take that to mean you have no real argument against what I said and are resorting to your typical way of handling things. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Remove ==

Remove the quotes section. It's stupid and has nothing to do with planned parenthood. It makes the article look all evil and dumb. Just because someone might be all OMG PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS EBIL1111 doesn't mean you should screw up an article to make it biased. This article is about PLANNED PARENTHOOD, not the lady who founded it. If you want to have a section of nonsense talky-talk go make your own article on the lady and write whatever nonsene you want. But whoever is protecting this article, I kindly request you remove that section.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

God damnit what the hell is taking so long stop ignoring me! alteast respond with a no instead of just ignoring me! xK

[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ann Coulter said that Planned Parenthood is using "health care" as a euphemism for "abortion". There are not a "healthcare provider" in the general sense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Depends on what you mean by health care...yes they provide abortion resources, but also contraception, STD treatment and counseling, etc. If abortion is outlawed, they would still have much to provide.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 19:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Book of Mormon

2007-05-07T02:56:58Z

Livingston:

I have a question about the ancestry of Native Americans. I thought, that since genetic tests couldn't find a common ancestry between Jews and Native Americans, that modern LDS teaching is that while the descendants of the Lammanites lived (and still live, presumably) in America, the bulk of the Native Americans are descendants of people dispersed after the Flood (I think?), and not necessarily from Nephi et al. I don't want to change the article, because I'm not LDS, and I'm not sure about it, but I did want to ask if that part of this article was accurate. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 20:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restored the proper title of the book which this article references; please do not remove or change. ==

The title of the book commonly known as "The Book of Mormon" is actually "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

The removal of the rightful subtitle of such an extensively published book from a reference such as the Conservapedia wouldn't make sense coming from a neutral party.

The front matter of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes it quite clear that the name of the book is indeed as I noted. If you wish to verify the authenticity of my observation, please take a look [http://scriptures.lds.org/ here] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents here]. Please also feel free to open physical copy of the aforementioned book you may have at hand, and you will find in the front matter of the book the same full title.

Just as the full title of Sean Hannity's most recently published book is "Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism," so too does "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" have a proper name, including a subtitle. Please do not remove the book's subtitle from the first reference to the name of the book in the article. [[User:Leader|Leader]] 22:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The whole thing seems a little bizarre, but, hey, to each his own.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 22:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)