Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Are Western liberals just Orwell's party members

2007-12-12T00:43:37Z

Perezhilton: /* Alternative ( Are political parties in general the equivelant of 1984's "party Members") */

{{debate}}

==No==

Don't be silly, there are many diffences (list them below).

:My understanding if ''1984'' is that the party members were meant to represent the more authoritative side of society. I think the differences which support this include:
** The government of 1984 uses extensive surveillance and incarceration methods to govern its citizens, the liberals opposed the anti-terror laws of the more conservative parties worldwide which included the ability to use wire taps, internet monitors and the ability to detain people without charge for longer periods of time
** The party reserved sex only for procreation and removed pleasure, liberals are more likely to encourage sexual pleasure (eg sex outside of marriage)
** One of the party's slogans is that "War is Peace", liberals tend to believe that peace is won not through armed conflict but through negotiation (eg Iraq War)
** The party believes that some forms of torture are allowable to ensure social stability, liberals tend to be against all forms of torture and many interrogation techniques
:In response to one of the points below, liberals actively oppose globalisation because it could result in countries losing their cultural heritage or identity (just look at the liberal rioters at APEC summits), so I hardly think we can say they aim to conquer the world. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

There are too many similarities for it to be coincidence.

*Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
*The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.

== Alternative ( Are political parties in general the equivelant of 1984's "party Members") ==
There are similarities between political party members in general and the "Party Members" in Orwell's classic 1984.

Both Conservatives and Liberals do the following:
* One of the aims of the Party is to conquer the whole surface of the earth. This is somthing people of a political ideology constantly do.

Conservatives:
* Support surveilence of the people of the country. i.e. Wire tapping

Liberals:
* Support the stiefuling of free speach. i.e. Political correctness.

--[[User:Perezhilton|Perezhilton]] 19:42, 11 December 2007 (EST) Perezhilton

Conservapedia:Are Western liberals just Orwell's party members

2007-12-12T00:42:56Z

Perezhilton: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

==No==

Don't be silly, there are many diffences (list them below).

:My understanding if ''1984'' is that the party members were meant to represent the more authoritative side of society. I think the differences which support this include:
** The government of 1984 uses extensive surveillance and incarceration methods to govern its citizens, the liberals opposed the anti-terror laws of the more conservative parties worldwide which included the ability to use wire taps, internet monitors and the ability to detain people without charge for longer periods of time
** The party reserved sex only for procreation and removed pleasure, liberals are more likely to encourage sexual pleasure (eg sex outside of marriage)
** One of the party's slogans is that "War is Peace", liberals tend to believe that peace is won not through armed conflict but through negotiation (eg Iraq War)
** The party believes that some forms of torture are allowable to ensure social stability, liberals tend to be against all forms of torture and many interrogation techniques
:In response to one of the points below, liberals actively oppose globalisation because it could result in countries losing their cultural heritage or identity (just look at the liberal rioters at APEC summits), so I hardly think we can say they aim to conquer the world. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

There are too many similarities for it to be coincidence.

*Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
*The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.

== Alternative ( Are political parties in general the equivelant of 1984's "party Members") ==
There are similarities between political party memebers in general and the "Party Members" in Orwell's classic 1984.

Both Conservatives and Liberals do the following:
* One of the aims of the Party is to conquer the whole surface of the earth. This is somthing people of a political ideology constantly do.

Conservatives:
* Support surveilence of the people of the country. i.e. Wire tapping

Liberals:
* Support the stiefuling of free speach. i.e. Political correctness.

--[[User:Perezhilton|Perezhilton]] 19:42, 11 December 2007 (EST) Perezhilton

Talk:Essay:Life Isn't Free

2007-12-12T00:00:24Z

Perezhilton: New page: Is being a friend to make a friend even having cost? Isn't being a friend an honorable thing to do, and without cost since a person feels good about themselves when they are a friend to so...

Is being a friend to make a friend even having cost? Isn't being a friend an honorable thing to do, and without cost since a person feels good about themselves when they are a friend to someone they like?

Talk:Sexual healing

2007-12-11T23:56:37Z

Perezhilton: New page: Is it fair to deny the power of sexual healing solely on the testimony of one Psychoologist. I mean, think about it, if a single scientist says that kittens melt in water, is he right?

Is it fair to deny the power of sexual healing solely on the testimony of one Psychoologist. I mean, think about it, if a single scientist says that kittens melt in water, is he right?