Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Pro-life score

2010-08-31T19:31:44Z

NateSmall: Created page with 'I would like to contribute to this project, however I have a few questions: *Does this score count factors other than the person's positon on abortion? I think positions on assis…'

I would like to contribute to this project, however I have a few questions:
*Does this score count factors other than the person's positon on abortion? I think positions on assisted suicide and programs to promote marriage should count as well. What do you think?
*Should we restrict this to actions by the people or groups, or is it acceptible to use thngs they have said as well?
--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:31, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-06-08T18:59:39Z

NateSmall: /* Answer to Aschlafy */

::''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].''


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2010-06-04T19:46:49Z

NateSmall: /* First few sentences (Edit Break) */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it harps about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Benefits of capitalism

2010-06-01T19:52:25Z

NateSmall:

[[Capitalism]] has many benefits compared to other economic forms.

#In general, capitalism produces more wealth.
#Capitalism actively rewards positive traits like hard work and ingenuity. Similarly, it punishes negative traits such as laziness and theft.
#Capitalism is more compatible with [[democracy]] than other systems. In fact, there are few republics or democracies in the modern world that are not capitalistic.
#Capitalism is more compatible with [[Christianity]] than other systems.
#[[Free market]]s are the natural state of trade. Unlike [[socialism]], which requires government interference, capitalism can develop naturally. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have smaller governments.
#Free markets can conduct certain functions that are normally handled by the government. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be more efficient.
#Governments in capitalist societies tend to generate more wealth, since more wealth is being produced. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be stronger.
#Capitalist societies usually do not have large [[black market]]s. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have less crime.

[[Category:Capitalism]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Benefits of capitalism

2010-06-01T19:47:47Z

NateSmall: Created page with 'Capitalism has many benefits compared to other economic forms. #In general, capitalism produces more wealth. #Capitalism actively rewards positive traits like hard work and …'

[[Capitalism]] has many benefits compared to other economic forms.

#In general, capitalism produces more wealth.
#Capitalism actively rewards positive traits like hard work and ingenuity. Similarly, it punishes negative traits such as laziness and theft.
#Capitalism is more compatible with democracy than other systems. In fact, there are few republics or democracies in the modern world that are not capitalistic.
#Capitalism is more compatible with Christianity than other systems.
#Free markets are the natural state of trade. Unlike socialism, which requires government interference, capitalism can develop naturally. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have smaller governments.
#Free markets can conduct certain functions that are normally handled by the government. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be more efficient.
#Governments in capitalist societies tend to generate more wealth, since more wealth is being produced. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be stronger.
#Capitalist societies usually do not have large black markets. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have less crime.

[[Category:Capitalism]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Starlight problem

2010-05-28T19:51:50Z

NateSmall: Undo revision 782710 by PoundMeHarderTK (Talk)

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Censorability

2010-05-28T19:51:31Z

NateSmall: Undo revision 782706 by PoundMeHarderTK (Talk)

The '''censorability''' of a concept, movement or ideology is its vulnerability of being censored by its opponents.

'''Censorability''' can be quantified on a scale from "0" to "1", where "0" reflects an ideology that can completely withstand efforts to censor it, while "1" indicates easy suppression through [[censorship]]. A perfect score for censorability is "0", reflecting maximum strength.

The score is dependent in part on how the ideology or movement is expressed. For example, if a unique statement or outward sign is required as an essential part of the ideology, then it will have higher censorability than if its articulation is varied.

Ideologies can be rated for relative censorability as an indication of long-term strength.

Over time, movements that are relatively difficult to censor -- i.e., have a low censorability -- can thrive. An example is the [[pro-life]] movement: it has virtually a perfect "0" degree of censorability.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Concept or Ideology
!Censorability (Scale 0 to 1)
!Comments
|-
|[[Pro-Life]]
|0
|Virtually impossible to censor.
|-
|[[Freedom]]
|0.1
|The desire to be free is an innate characteristic of most people. History has shown that repressive regimes are eventually overthrown, no matter how much they try to indoctrinate their citizens.
|-
|[[Atheism]]
|0.2
|Many do not quickly recognize its forms.
|-
|[[Tea Party Movement]]
|0.3
|[[liberals]] haven't been able to censor it yet
|-
|Military recruitment
|0.3
|[[Anti-war]] liberals often try to shut down recruitment centers with protests most notably on college campuses, with little success.
|-
|[[Homosexual agenda]]
|0.3
|By claiming that criticism of immoral and unhealthy lifestyles is "bigotry," pro-homosexual activists are able to censor critiques of their political agenda.
|-
|[[Christianity]]
|0.5
|Dimwitted censorship of Christian references often occurs
|-
|[[Creationism]]
|0.9
|Absent from virtually every public school curriculum world-wide
|-

|}

== Censor-Prone Environments ==

Different media, institutions and environments are more censor-prone than others. Colleges are extremely censor-prone environment, perhaps due to a small group of people acting with no accountability. The [[internet]] is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and is relatively immune to censorship.

== Equation for Censorability ==

Censorability expresses vulnerability to censorship. It is possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following mathematical equation where '''c''' is the number of occurrences of censorship of '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurrences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

::::<math>E_x(t)=\left ( \frac{c}{c+o} \right ) \!</math>100%

The higher the percentage the less resilient the concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''' is to censorship. So 0% means completely resilant to censorship and 100% means completely vulnerable to censorship.

== Factors influencing Censorability ==
Ideas and movements' censorability is affected by various factors, including:
* How easily the idea can be taken out of context
* How easily the idea can be distorted and connected with negative ideas (ie. falsely claiming opposition to affirmative action is racism)
* How complex the idea is, or how much background is required to understand it (complex ideas are easy to obfuscate, while simple ideas are hard to censor)

== Ways to Reduce Censorability ==

Quantification of censorability may facilitate reducing the censorability of a movement or good idea. Just as exercise improves physical conditioning, there maybe techniques for enhancing the resilient attributes of a message.

[[category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Censorability

2010-05-28T19:48:50Z

NateSmall:

andy, could we have some sources??? --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 19:04, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:John, censorability is as logical a concept as the idea that 2+2=4. I suppose you also require "sources" for such logical truths as the positive effects of school prayer and of reading the Bible. Open your mind. [[User:EdwardS|EdwardS]] 19:14, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:: Right. What's next, demanding a source for an arithmetic calculation?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::so, you're refusing to simply cite a source, which I "requested". My mind is open, i just wanted this page to adhere to the Conservapedia Commandments. also, some cites with maths would be nice, because it would give the population links to further information. --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 21:22, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

:::: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable," requires the Conservapedia Commandments. Original insights can qualify. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia welcomes original, logical entries. Conservapedia advances knowledge rather than merely regurgitating and distorting it as liberal sources do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

::I must say this is powerful stuff providing amazing insights. I have noticed that both [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]] are objected to by [[Liberal]]s, and as such they will try and censor them. What I would like to do is quantify the censorability of [[classroom prayer]] and economic [[allocative efficiency]]. I am, however, uncertain as to how I should ascertain the censorability score on the scale of "0" to "1" for the afore mentioned. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 09:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::: The scoring system could be improved. Classroom prayer would have high censorability, I think. Please improve this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Basis of determining values ==

I'm probably just not understanding the concept properly, so an answer to my question may help in improving the article itself. I can see how some concepts or topics are more easily censored than others ''in specific circumstances'', but that's not the same as ''the topic itself'' being susceptible to censorship. 
To clarify what I mean, I was expecting Christianity to be a benchmark example of the "zero" end of this scale. You can suppress the open worship of Christianity in some countries, and we see many examples where the sensible original intent of separating Church and State is taken to ridiculous extremes that go against that original intent. Add to this two thousand years of Christian martyrs who suffered the ultimate form of censorship over their faith, and yet, Christianity itself survives and thrives, the core faith itself having defied censorship even as other religions from 2,000 years ago have faded. 
You can't censor the laws of mathematics because, like the ratio of Pi, they are there for anyone to observe and understand for themselves. Other concepts, like Christianity, ''could'' be censored in theory and replaced by indoctrination in other ways of thinking in restrictive places like North Korea. However, it's the ''powerful nature'' of a concept like Christianity that ultimately defies censorship. Suppress it in one place, and it grows in several others, waiting to be spread back to where it was suppressed. 
As I'm writing this, I thinking that the best way to express this is by defining a corollary property, ''Resilience to Censorship''. Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship. Others are susceptible to censorship, in the way that plants can be eradicated from a location, but as with plants, are resilient enough to be reseeded and take root if they survive anywhere else. (Look at the area around Mt. Saint Helens or even Chernobyl now). So unless I totally missed the point about censorability, you need to match it up with the corresponding resiliency to truly understand how powerful an idea or concept is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:18, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

: Truth continues regardless of censorship, but some articulations of the truth are more easily censored than others. "Resilience to Censorship" is what is meant by "censorability": zero censorability means 100% resilience. In fact, maybe the scale should be on a percentage basis.

: Christianity is easily censored in institutions of academic learning, hence its poor score. Other concepts, like pro-life, are more difficult to censor even in the most hostile (liberal) environments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:32, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::I see what you're saying, but I find it hard to accept that the Tea Party, which has been around for less than 24 months, should be regarded as more resilient than Christianity. In 50 or 100 years, I know one will be around and thriving, but the other...? (I'm not close-minded, but you'll have to forgive my pro-Christianity bias, Andy :-) ) --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:39, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::The Tea Party itself won't be around in fifty years, but the values that underpin it might well be. The French Revolution only lasted a short time, but liberty, fraternity and equality are still going strong.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::In addition to CPalmer's point, the issue is not resilience, but resilience ''to censorship''. Christianity is stronger and with greater history than the [[Tea Party Movement]]. But the Tea Party concept is taught more in liberal history textbooks than Christianity is. And I'm not sure how one could censor the Tea Party Movement, while it is obvious how liberals are censoring Christianity.

:::This entry does not try make subjective claims about which is better, or which is stronger. It focuses on '''censorability''' alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:49, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::By expressing ''censorability'' as percentage it may perhaps be possible to determine the censorability of a concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''', in a given environment '''E''', over a particular period of time '''t''', using the following formula where '''c''' is the number of occurences of censorship of '''<math>x</math>''' and '''o''' the number of uncensored occurences of '''<math>x</math>'''.

:::::::<math>x</math><math>E(t)={\operatorname{c}100\over\operatorname{c}+o} \!</math>%

::::The higher the percentage the less resiliant the concept, movement or ideology '''<math>x</math>''' is to censorship. So 0% means completely resilant to censorship and 100% means completely vulnerable to censorship. ''Censorability'' thus expresses vulnerability to censorship.

::::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 12:12, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Your suggestion is excellent and I included a slightly modified notation in the entry itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

::::I took the liberty of adding brackets and explaining the parameters. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 13:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

:::::Thank you. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:00, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

==100% Censorable?==

Is it possible for something to be 100% censorable? If so, you should include it on the table. You need it for a frame of reference. Maybe it should be something that is self evidently wrong, like atheistic materialism or that theory that claims that life started from bacteria on a meteor that hit earth.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:48, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

2010-05-25T19:32:33Z

NateSmall: Redirected page to Talk:Vladimir Lenin

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Vladimir Lenin]]

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)

2010-05-25T19:31:45Z

NateSmall: Redirected page to Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]

Vladimir I. Lenin

2010-05-25T19:30:45Z