Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Freedom 7

2008-03-20T19:39:18Z

PhoenixWright: recat

'''Freedom 7''' was a spacecraft launched by [[NASA]], using the [[Mercury-Redstone]] Rocket, carrying [[Alan Shephard]].<ref>http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mr-3/mr-3.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Space Exploration]]

Freedom 7

2008-03-20T19:39:03Z

PhoenixWright: New page: '''Freedom 7''' was a spacecraft launched by NASA, using the Mercury-Redstone Rocket, carrying Alan Shephard.<ref>http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mr-3/mr-3.htm</ref...

User talk:PhoenixWright/sig

2008-03-20T19:37:13Z

PhoenixWright: New page: Test-~~~~

Test-'''Phoenix''' [[User_talk:PhoenixWright | vote obama!]] 15:37, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

User:PhoenixWright/sig

2008-03-20T19:37:03Z

PhoenixWright: New page: '''Phoenix''' [[User_talk:PhoenixWri...

'''Phoenix''' [[User_talk:PhoenixWright | vote obama!]]

LSAT

2008-03-20T19:28:41Z

PhoenixWright: a start

The '''LSAT''' is the ''Law School Admission Test'', a multiple-choice test for assessing candidates for entry into [[law school]]. The test is graded on a scale from 120 to 180, with 180 being a perfect score.

==The Test==
Composed of four sections - 1 of reading comprehension, 1 "logic games" section, and 2 logical reasoning sections - the LSAT seeks to test a candidate's capabilities of logical reasoning.

Since the test is composed of a known quantity of sections, and a known set of questions, it is a test which may - and must - be "studied for." Law school candidates are advised to take a preparatory course in addition to studying rigorously on their own, as not all of the reasoning skills tested will be natural to the candidate.

==Benchmarks==
Typically, a 170 is enough to, coupled with a positive undergraduate grade point average, guarantee admission to the top-10 American law schools. A 172 is generally enough to guarantee admission to at least one of the top-5 American law schools.<ref>In order, Yale, Stanford, Harvard, NYU, Columbia.</ref> Each individual point, then, is very valuable.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Law]]

Patriotic dissent

2008-03-20T19:18:37Z

PhoenixWright: a start

'''Patriotic dissent''' is the idea that a [[citizen]] of a [[democracy]] has the right & the [[duty]] to not "follow the crowd" on matters political, but rather to stand up and try to do what's best for the country, even if it's unpopular, difficult, or labeled "unpatriotic."

[[Election|Elections]] give every American citizen the chance to either support the current government, or register their own patriotic dissent by suggesting another path for America.

The majority party in elections often tries to label dissenters as unpatriotic, but this goes against the grand tradition of American political involvement.

==Examples==
American history is full of examples of patriotic dissent, from the Founding Fathers to the modern day:
#[[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and the other leaders of their generation risked being called traitors and unpatriotic Englishmen to articulate a concept of ''American'' identity. Aside from facing strong opposition from the British, the [[Founding Fathers]] like Washington and Jefferson faced opposition from their fellow colonists, some of whom considered themselves to be Englishmen above all else.
#[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] lobbied for American entry into [[World War II]], despite America's conception of itself, then, as an isolationist nation untroubled by "dying [[Europe]]." In doing so, Roosevelt went against his countrymen's perception of their nation, and fought for good against the [[Nazi]] regime.

[[category:Politics]]

Free Speech Clause

2008-03-20T19:12:59Z

PhoenixWright: ironic photo seems unencylopedic

The [[First Amendment]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] states:

:Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ....

The U.S. Supreme Court has expanded this prohibition to apply against all forms of government, such as [[state]] and [[local government]]s.

== What Free Speech Is ==
Free speech is the doctrine that allows a citizen to speak freely without government restriction.

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in ''Whitney v. California'', 274 U.S. 357
(1927):
*[The Founding Fathers] believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. <ref> [http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/hecklers-veto-05.pdf] </ref>

== What Free Speech is Not ==
An important distinction is that free speech is ''not'' the right to be able to speak freely in a private setting such as a job or a school. You can be fired for criticizing your company's product in front of a customer, insulting your boss, etc.
While the government may not intrude, private organizations may set their own speech policies, and every citizen has a duty to speak and act responsibly. The First Amendment addresses none of these concerns as protected.

Speech that is termed "fighting words" is not protected speech. That is to say that speech that causes an act which the law does not protect, is not protected. Thus, it is not a free speech violation to arrest a person for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Similarly, it is not protected speech to advocate the death of the president.

Heckling is a gray area in the ethics of free speech. To a certain extent, interrupting a public speech with question or retorts is tolerated. On the other hand, using heckling as a tactic to stop the speaker is not an expression of free speech (on the heckler's part) as much as it is a violation of the speaker's free speech rights.

== Origins ==
Christians believe its basis is the Christian evangelism that characterized the American colonies in the period leading up to the American Revolution. Of all the nations of the world, the one which provides the most support for free speech is the United States (see [[Marketplace of ideas]]).

Others point to the history of political & [[patriotic dissent]] as an American tradition, and the last wall against tyranny.

The jury acquittal of [[John Peter Zenger]] (1735) in the colony of New York played an important early role in expanding freedom of press and free speech.

==External links==
*[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57800 Journalist, Columbia graduate to rip diploma over Iran prez ]and the original article [http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57799 The day freedom died] at ''WorldNetDaily'', September 24, 2007.

[[category:politics]]

Free Speech Clause

2008-03-20T19:12:45Z

PhoenixWright: wikilink

[[Image:Free Speech.jpg|right|250px]]
The [[First Amendment]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] states:

:Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ....

The U.S. Supreme Court has expanded this prohibition to apply against all forms of government, such as [[state]] and [[local government]]s.

== What Free Speech Is ==
Free speech is the doctrine that allows a citizen to speak freely without government restriction.

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in ''Whitney v. California'', 274 U.S. 357
(1927):
*[The Founding Fathers] believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. <ref> [http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/hecklers-veto-05.pdf] </ref>

== What Free Speech is Not ==
An important distinction is that free speech is ''not'' the right to be able to speak freely in a private setting such as a job or a school. You can be fired for criticizing your company's product in front of a customer, insulting your boss, etc.
While the government may not intrude, private organizations may set their own speech policies, and every citizen has a duty to speak and act responsibly. The First Amendment addresses none of these concerns as protected.

Speech that is termed "fighting words" is not protected speech. That is to say that speech that causes an act which the law does not protect, is not protected. Thus, it is not a free speech violation to arrest a person for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Similarly, it is not protected speech to advocate the death of the president.

Heckling is a gray area in the ethics of free speech. To a certain extent, interrupting a public speech with question or retorts is tolerated. On the other hand, using heckling as a tactic to stop the speaker is not an expression of free speech (on the heckler's part) as much as it is a violation of the speaker's free speech rights.

== Origins ==
Christians believe its basis is the Christian evangelism that characterized the American colonies in the period leading up to the American Revolution. Of all the nations of the world, the one which provides the most support for free speech is the United States (see [[Marketplace of ideas]]).

Others point to the history of political & [[patriotic dissent]] as an American tradition, and the last wall against tyranny.

The jury acquittal of [[John Peter Zenger]] (1735) in the colony of New York played an important early role in expanding freedom of press and free speech.

==External links==
*[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57800 Journalist, Columbia graduate to rip diploma over Iran prez ]and the original article [http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57799 The day freedom died] at ''WorldNetDaily'', September 24, 2007.

[[category:politics]]

Unbreakable

2008-03-20T19:12:05Z

PhoenixWright:

'''Unbreakable''' is a movie about a college football star who gave up the game after a car accident
and his encounter with a man who wants to know his "place" in the world. It was directed by [[M. Night Shyamalan]] (see [[Sixth Sense]]).

{{spoiler}}

David Dunn ([[Bruce Willis]]) is a security guard at university football stadium, looking for new work in New York because of his strained marriage.

[[category:Movies]]
[[category:Entertainment]]

Unbreakable

2008-03-20T19:11:57Z

PhoenixWright:

'''Unbreakable''' is a movie about a college football star who gave up the game after a car accident
and his encounter with a man who wants to know his "place" in the world. It was directed by [[M. Night Shyamalan]] (see [[Sixth Sense]]).

{{spoiler}}

David Dunn ([[Bruce Willis]]) is a security guard at university football stadium, looking for new work in New York because of his strained marriage.

[[category:Movies]]
[[category:Entertainment]]

Unbreakable

2008-03-20T19:11:50Z

PhoenixWright: added cat, whited font so spoilers don't show

'''Unbreakable''' is a movie about a college football star who gave up the game after a car accident
and his encounter with a man who wants to know his "place" in the world. It was directed by [[M. Night Shyamalan]] (see [[Sixth Sense]]).

{{spoiler}}

David Dunn ([[Bruce Willis]]) is a security guard at university football stadium, looking for new work in New York because of his strained marriage.</white>

[[category:Movies]]
[[category:Entertainment]]

User talk:McCain08

2008-03-17T18:01:20Z

PhoenixWright:

This place is '''''NOT''''' a 'hate site aimed at Liberals and Gays.'[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:HelpJazz#I_can_never_get_my_head_around_it] There are plenty of Liberal users on the site. If you are only here to smear this site, then leave...there are plenty of people who want to be on this site. We are not in desperate need of ''sarcastic''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:McCain08] editors. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 13:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Do you read the 'Liberal ______' articles? I've never seen anything like it in my life. It seems that run of the mill articles like 'Soap' will never get searched on conservapedia. People will always go to wikipedia for that. What conservapedia does to get attention is make ridiculous unsourced statements in an article and somehow piece a concurrent line of thought throughout. I've even seen articles that just consist of a quote. Its remarkable! [[User:McCain08|McCain08]] 13:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Reference please, Mcain08, for the article only consisting of quotes?? Wikipedia's articles are long and wordy. When I even '''''TRY''''' to use them, I have to sift through so much garbage to get ''real'' information it is not even funny. I don't see why you bother coming on this site - excpet to make it look bad with your ''unsourced'' smears. Please consider leaving if you don't want to contribute '''''educational'''''material to this site. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 13:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Bethany, liberals here are subject to almost constant intimidation, ridicule, and arbitrary blocks. Face up to it.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I wonder why...most liberal in the past have only tried to make CONSERVapedia look bad.[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 13:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:Therefore all liberals must be equally guilty?? Sorry Bethany but that's prejudice! Also, could you please point to the educational value of [[Liberals and friendship]]?[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:01, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:McCain08

2008-03-17T17:49:39Z

PhoenixWright:

Talk:Art

2008-03-17T17:28:02Z

PhoenixWright: /* Liberalism and art */

==Liberalism and art==
Temp moved here, but really should be incorporated as a section on the use of art as propaganda , or in a propaganda article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:06, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:Or maybe it should just be deleted, as another example of conservative hate speech. I can't imagine the justification, other than bullying and the need to "feel like a big man," for this type of nonsense-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-17T14:49:41Z

PhoenixWright: Since it's been a while now...

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on [[user:PhoenixWright|my user page]], in this [[tabula rasa]] environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. [[User:kitefox|kitefox]]

As would I. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ann Coulter]] :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Misleading terminology==

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Where is the evidence? ==

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

:'''Conservatives''' often make approval of [[conservative]] values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[conservative]] values.

:A '''conservative friendship''' can occur wherever [[conservatives]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

:In contrast, [[liberals]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship.

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:We know [[Liberals]] all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your [[Liberal tricks]]. Reflect and improve! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a ''reflection'' of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ostracize a republican ==

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: No one is claiming anything about ''all liberals''. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that ''Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about ''all conservatives''. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Since it's been a while now... ==

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the ''imprimatur'' of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberal labels

2008-03-17T14:35:38Z

PhoenixWright: this is worse than the others and that's saying something

{{speedy}}

Liberals use words like "[[conservative]]" as [[epithets]] to disparage and discredit any views opposing [[Liberalism]]. In a typical news story, if opposing views are presented, the liberal view will be portrayed as mainstream, i.e., [[unmarked]]. A conservative view will be specifically [[marked]], so viewers or readers know that it's not considered mainstream.

The basis for this is the liberal delusion that liberalism is mainstream, and that conservatism is "[[far right]]". Part of this is the motive to smear modern conservatism with connotations of [[Nazi]] [[Fascism]].

Ostracize

2008-03-17T04:36:18Z

PhoenixWright: New page: To '''ostracize''' is to vex or annoy, particularly as part of a group. ==See also== #Bullying category:ethics

To '''ostracize''' is to vex or annoy, particularly as part of a group.

==See also==
#[[Bullying]]

[[category:ethics]]

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-03-17T04:33:06Z

PhoenixWright: /* Ostracize a republican */

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-03-16T18:57:21Z

PhoenixWright: Undo revision 407046 by Special:Contributions/Aschlafly (User talk:Aschlafly)

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[What is wrong with communism?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Shareholder proposal

2008-03-14T15:46:18Z

PhoenixWright: New page: A '''shareholder proposal''' is an issue that shareholders may put to a vote at a corporation's annual meeting, by virtue of its inclusion, at the corporati...

A '''shareholder proposal''' is an issue that [[shareholder|shareholders]] may put to a vote at a [[corporation|corporation's]] annual meeting, by virtue of its inclusion, at the corporation's expense, on the management's [[proxy statement]]. The [[SEC]] defines what is or is not proper material for a shareholder proposal in Rule 14a-8. Among others, a shareholder proposal may not:
# Cause the corporation to, if enacted, violate state law or federal law,
# Be based on a purely personal grievance,
# Be contrary to management's own proposal,
# Deal with ordinary company business, or,
# Be irrelevant, by virtue of its non-impact.

[[category:Corporations]]

Motion to compel

2008-03-14T15:36:43Z

PhoenixWright: New page: A '''motion to compel''', or, in its traditional name, a "motion to compel discovery," is a legal motion made during discovery in which a party seeks to obtain information ...

A '''motion to compel''', or, in its traditional name, a "motion to compel discovery," is a [[law|legal]] [[motion]] made during [[discovery]] in which a party seeks to obtain information from her opponent, which the opponents seeks to hide from the discovery process. The motion alleges that the sought information is material, and unprotected by any [[privilege]].

[[category:Motion practice]]
[[category:Law]]

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T15:14:28Z

PhoenixWright: Oops! Sorry

Science is not identical to [[physical science]]. The ''hard sciences'' like physics and chemistry may be physical sciences, but economics, sociology and psychology are also sciences. There's even a field of academic study called "[[political science]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
:How many articles have links to this article, with [[physical science]] being the intended destination? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Albert Einstein]] was not a Christian. Perhaps we should explain more about his religious ideas. Did he ever come out as a full-fledged atheist, positively denying the existence of God? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)
: Wouldn't the [[Albert Einstein]] article be the place for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Einstein was a Jew, (BTW, why isn't there an article Judaism and Science?).

Question: why is it significant that many scientists are atheists. (It would have been just as accurate to say "many scientists are Christians/Jews/Buddhists/" etc.) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: The significance would be that their atheism colours their science, such as rejecting God as a possible explanation of how we came to be. And I don't think that it would be "just" as accurate to say that many scientists are Buddhists. Some religions have greater representation than others. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Scientists before Christ ==

In regard to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Science&diff=402631&oldid=402339], [[Flat Earth|Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's radius]] and [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Callippus.html Callippus calculated the length of a solar year]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Does astronomy count? If so, you could use the entire Mayan civilization. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: It might depend to some extent on what you call "science". See for example these quotes from a review of [[Rodney Stark|Rodney Stark's]] book[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]:
{{QuoteBox|India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science?}}
{{QuoteBox|The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation.}}
: These both indicate that science didn't exist before Christian Europe.
: So were Eratosthenes' and Callippus' works not quite what we'd refer to as "science" (e.g. simply mathematical calculations rather than use of the 'scientific method'), or were they isolated exceptions to the rule?
: Qualifying the scientists as "since Christ" seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps we could change it to "Most of the early scientists of the modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...", although that seems a bit awkward to me. Or is it currently okay because "who started many of the scientific fields" is sufficient qualification?
: What do you think?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think it's accurate to say that they started the scientific fields in the modern era, so I would qualify the statement as "in the early modern scientific era", since nowadays, scientists are less likely to be religious than the public.
:: Regarding the Greeks, science has become more rigorous throughout history. See [[phrenology]] and [[race science]], for example. I would be surprised if the beginning of any ancient scientific fields didn't start in superstition. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm not sure that science really has become more rigorous. Whilst some things like phrenology are no longer around, other areas, such as evolution, are as alive as ever.
::: Are you suggesting the following: "Most of the early scientists in the early modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...". That still seems a bit awkward or unnecessarily wordy for me. At the very least, I would drop the ''first'' use of the word "early" if we went with something like that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I suggest "Most of the scientists in the early modern scientific era . . ." It's not clear that they started the fields they were investigating. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Maybe we should also note that most Europeans and Americans at the time were also Christians. It puts into contrast the strange divide we see now. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I've been trying to figure out for a few days what I think of the suggested wording. I've decided that I don't like it (sorry). I think that the meaning of "early modern scientific era" is unclear. I'm now thinking that a better wording would be along the lines of "Most of the scientists from the [[scientific revolution]] to the 19th century...". Also, the claim about them starting the various scientific disciplines is essentially correct (the first scientists in the fields are pretty-well by definition the founders of those fields).
::::: Researcher [[Rodney Stark]], apparently an agnostic, researched this issue. The following is from a review of one of hist books:
{{QuoteBox|To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I like "[[scientific revolution]]", and I don't think the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]] is a significant finding. It seems more like an way to justify [[atheism]].

What's wrong with kicking back and '''marveling''' and the intricate patterns in the world God created for us? Why all the distrust and fear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Distrust and fear? More like a "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:5;&version=31; willing ignorance]", because they don't ''want'' there to be a God to whom they are answerable.
: Regarding evolution, the quote continues with "And the obvious flaw in Darwinism is that it ‘falls notably short of explaining the origin of species’ (p. 177). So atheism is left nakedly ideological, with all its attempts to wrap itself in science thwarted." Also, there is a footnote which adds "By attributing the appearance of design to natural selection, Darwin replaced this argument for the existence of God with a naturalistic process. His argument was flawed, however, in that natural selection can only select from things that already exist so it does not explain the origin of the created kinds".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::This appeal to authority is not impressive. And I'm all for marveling at the patterns of the world... but marveling is not science!-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why do you consider it unimpressive? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:31, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::A quote does not the truth make. Argument ought not be throwing sources at one another all day. Further it's from a biased source. Anyways, I have to go, but keep that in mind.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: No, a quote does not make the truth, but research can, in principle, establish the truth, and that is what Stark did. So what's the problem? And how is the source biased? And what sources would be unbiased? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let's go into it further. The source is biased - CreationOnTheWeb - because it professes to be a scientific group with an agenda. The world's dominant mind on the philosophy of science, had this to say about agenda'd science - {{cquote|The scientist must, for example, be concerned to solve problems about the behavior of nature.... More important, the solutions that satisfy him may not be merely personal but must instead be accepted as solutions by many.... One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.}} "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. 168. See, I have quotes too. That suggests that one ought to distrust a scientist with an agenda, who, by assuming an agenda, becomes no scientist at all. That makes me doubt anything arising within the "Journal of Creation."
Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context. The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: The source is a book review of a book that is by someone who is apparently an agnostic, and certainly not someone who works for CMI (Creation Ministries International). You're shooting the messenger. Second, CMI (the organisation; you named the web-site) does not profess to be a scientific group. They profess to be a Christian ministry that employs scientists and does its best to make its articles, etc. scientifically accurate. Yes, they have an agenda, just as almost everyone does, including atheists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. But that doesn't mean that their science is faulty, nor that they have ceased to be scientists. Rather, you are engaging in the [[genetic fallacy]]: finding fault with the source rather than the argument. As for your quote, it doesn't refute anything I've said, but it's an interesting coincidence that the very person that you've been accused of being a sockpuppet of quoted me that book a few days ago. But as you're repeating, I'll repeat: Questioning the source of a claim rather than the claim itself is fallacious. It is clear that most mainstream journals also have agendas (for evolution, etc.), so do you distrust them also? I didn't think so. The fallacy of taking a quote out of context is one of removing it from its context ''in such a way as to change the meaning''. As you have not read the book, you have no basis for claiming that it is out of context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Thomas Kuhn is wildly popular among scientific and enlightened individuals, and he's widely taught in most colleges' humanities courses. I would call that no coincidence; I'm sure that, just like the person of whom I'm an alleged sockpuppet, I've gone to the bathroom in the last 24 hours :-).
::Also, have ''you'' read the book :-) ?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::: It's ''not'' a coincidence? There ''is'' a connection? So you ''are'' him? And here I was prepared to put it down to (an interesting) coincidence!
::: No, I haven't read Kuhn's book. How many and what creationist books, magazines, and/or journals have you read?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops! Sorry ==

Sorry for the misstatemet Philip. I meant to say "that is a coincidence." forgive me. I also meant to ask if you'd read Stark, not Kuhn, but I do commend Kuhn to your attention.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 11:14, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T14:36:42Z

PhoenixWright: /* Scientists before Christ */

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T13:59:19Z

PhoenixWright: /* Scientists before Christ */

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T13:59:00Z

PhoenixWright: /* Scientists before Christ */

Science is not identical to [[physical science]]. The ''hard sciences'' like physics and chemistry may be physical sciences, but economics, sociology and psychology are also sciences. There's even a field of academic study called "[[political science]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
:How many articles have links to this article, with [[physical science]] being the intended destination? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Albert Einstein]] was not a Christian. Perhaps we should explain more about his religious ideas. Did he ever come out as a full-fledged atheist, positively denying the existence of God? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)
: Wouldn't the [[Albert Einstein]] article be the place for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Einstein was a Jew, (BTW, why isn't there an article Judaism and Science?).

Question: why is it significant that many scientists are atheists. (It would have been just as accurate to say "many scientists are Christians/Jews/Buddhists/" etc.) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: The significance would be that their atheism colours their science, such as rejecting God as a possible explanation of how we came to be. And I don't think that it would be "just" as accurate to say that many scientists are Buddhists. Some religions have greater representation than others. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Scientists before Christ ==

In regard to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Science&diff=402631&oldid=402339], [[Flat Earth|Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's radius]] and [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Callippus.html Callippus calculated the length of a solar year]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Does astronomy count? If so, you could use the entire Mayan civilization. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: It might depend to some extent on what you call "science". See for example these quotes from a review of [[Rodney Stark|Rodney Stark's]] book[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]:
{{QuoteBox|India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science?}}
{{QuoteBox|The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation.}}
: These both indicate that science didn't exist before Christian Europe.
: So were Eratosthenes' and Callippus' works not quite what we'd refer to as "science" (e.g. simply mathematical calculations rather than use of the 'scientific method'), or were they isolated exceptions to the rule?
: Qualifying the scientists as "since Christ" seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps we could change it to "Most of the early scientists of the modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...", although that seems a bit awkward to me. Or is it currently okay because "who started many of the scientific fields" is sufficient qualification?
: What do you think?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think it's accurate to say that they started the scientific fields in the modern era, so I would qualify the statement as "in the early modern scientific era", since nowadays, scientists are less likely to be religious than the public.
:: Regarding the Greeks, science has become more rigorous throughout history. See [[phrenology]] and [[race science]], for example. I would be surprised if the beginning of any ancient scientific fields didn't start in superstition. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm not sure that science really has become more rigorous. Whilst some things like phrenology are no longer around, other areas, such as evolution, are as alive as ever.
::: Are you suggesting the following: "Most of the early scientists in the early modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...". That still seems a bit awkward or unnecessarily wordy for me. At the very least, I would drop the ''first'' use of the word "early" if we went with something like that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: I suggest "Most of the scientists in the early modern scientific era . . ." It's not clear that they started the fields they were investigating. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Maybe we should also note that most Europeans and Americans at the time were also Christians. It puts into contrast the strange divide we see now. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 23:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I've been trying to figure out for a few days what I think of the suggested wording. I've decided that I don't like it (sorry). I think that the meaning of "early modern scientific era" is unclear. I'm now thinking that a better wording would be along the lines of "Most of the scientists from the [[scientific revolution]] to the 19th century...". Also, the claim about them starting the various scientific disciplines is essentially correct (the first scientists in the fields are pretty-well by definition the founders of those fields).
::::: Researcher [[Rodney Stark]], apparently an agnostic, researched this issue. The following is from a review of one of hist books:
{{QuoteBox|To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I like "[[scientific revolution]]", and I don't think the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]] is a significant finding. It seems more like an way to justify [[atheism]].

What's wrong with kicking back and '''marveling''' and the intricate patterns in the world God created for us? Why all the distrust and fear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Distrust and fear? More like a "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:5;&version=31; willing ignorance]", because they don't ''want'' there to be a God to whom they are answerable.
: Regarding evolution, the quote continues with "And the obvious flaw in Darwinism is that it ‘falls notably short of explaining the origin of species’ (p. 177). So atheism is left nakedly ideological, with all its attempts to wrap itself in science thwarted." Also, there is a footnote which adds "By attributing the appearance of design to natural selection, Darwin replaced this argument for the existence of God with a naturalistic process. His argument was flawed, however, in that natural selection can only select from things that already exist so it does not explain the origin of the created kinds".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::This appeal to authority is not impressive. And I'm all for marveling at the patterns of the world... but marveling is not science!-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why do you consider it unimpressive? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:31, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::A quote does not the truth make. Argument ought not be throwing sources at one another all day. Further it's from a biased source. Anyways, I have to go, but keep that in mind.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: No, a quote does not make the truth, but research can, in principle, establish the truth, and that is what Stark did. So what's the problem? And how is the source biased? And what sources would be unbiased? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let's go into it further. The source is biased - CreationOnTheWeb - because it professes to be a scientific group with an agenda. The world's dominant mind on the philosophy of science, had this to say about agenda'd science - {{cquote|The scientist must, for example, be concerned to solve problems about the behavior of nature.... More important, the solutions that satisfy him may not be merely personal but must instead be accepted as solutions by many.... One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.}} "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. 168. See, I have quotes too. That suggests that one ought to distrust a scientist with an agenda, who, by assuming an agenda, becomes no scientist at all. That makes me doubt anything arising within the "Journal of Creation."
:::::Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context. The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T13:37:53Z

PhoenixWright: /* Scientists before Christ */

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T13:37:37Z

PhoenixWright: /* Scientists before Christ */

Proxy statement

2008-03-13T13:30:52Z

PhoenixWright: New page: A '''proxy statement''' is a letter sent to shareholders of a corporation, by the board of directors or an activist shareholder, in anticipation of a voting contest at ...

A '''proxy statement''' is a letter sent to [[shareholder|shareholders]] of a corporation, by the [[board of directors]] or an activist shareholder, in anticipation of a voting contest at the annual meeting. Because shareholders tend to be spread over the entire nation, it is infeasible for them all to vote in person, and therefore, management and other interested parties "campaign" and secure "proxy votes" by solicitations such as a proxy statement.

The cost of producing a proxy statement, ensuring its compliance with the [[Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]], and mailing it to ''all shareholders'' as required, is astronomical. As a result, typically only the company's management, or an activist [[institutional shareholder]], will be able to make a proxy statement, often ensuring that board election is uncontested. As an attempt to remedy this undemocratic element created by the amazing cost of the endeavor, the SEC has required corporate boards to, at their own cost, place [[shareholder proposal|shareholder proposals]] which meet certain indicia on management's own proxy statement.

[[category:Corporations]]

Talk:Science

2008-03-13T13:25:27Z

PhoenixWright: /* Scientists before Christ */

False dichotomy

2008-03-13T02:48:31Z

PhoenixWright: filling in a red link created by ed poor earlier

A '''false dichotomy''', or "false choice," is a logical fallacy whereby one side of an argument presents to the other two unpleasant, opposite, and extreme alternatives, alleging that they are the only choices open in the matter up for debate. The fallacy lies in disregarding the middle ground, or failing to credit the range of disagreement on the issue. Some examples follow.

==Examples of a false dichotomy==
*'''''America - love it or leave it!''''' This is a false dichotomy because the third choice - be a [[patriot]] by seeking favorable change - is open but disregarded. Unflinching support, after all, has never been a characteristic of American patriotism.
*'''''If science fails to explain something, the only alternative must be divine intervention''''' This false dichotomy fails to grasp the nature of science - that knowledge expands, and that some natural causes may not yet be descried. The third option - continued research - is open but ignored.

[[category:Rhetoric]]

Arthur (movie)

2008-03-13T02:47:49Z

PhoenixWright: probably moved to Arthur (Movie), no?

{{speedy}}
''Arthur'' is a movie starring [[Dudley Moore]] as a multimillionaire who is nearly disowned after falling in love with a middle class girl ([[Liza Minelli]]).

[[category:entertainment]]

Talk:Conflict of interest

2008-03-13T02:47:17Z

PhoenixWright:

Can we list [[Jamie Gorelick]] as an example of having a [[conflict of interest]]? A major theme of the [[9/11 Commission]] was the "wall" between FBI and the intelligence agencies - which she helped set up - and the role that wall had in obstructing attempts to prevent terrorist attacks like 9/11.

When an FBI agent tried to get a warrant to look at a flight student's laptop, she was threatened was dismissal. A policy supposedly meant to protect the legal rights of the innocent had the actual effect of letting 3 or 4 thousand people be murdered. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:43, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:If some citations other than opinion pages could be mustered, perhaps that'd be proper, eh?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:47, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Progressives and choice

2008-03-13T02:45:41Z

PhoenixWright:

== Jaw, meet table. ==

{{cquote|Progressives who support the right of third worlders to strap on a backpack of TNT and explode themselves in the public market}}
Okay, nothing at all against Ed here, but... bwuh? Are we now saying that <s>liberals</s> progressives support terrorism? Did I miss a memo? The "article" made me smack my forehead more than once.

Also, could somebody tell me how the "Coyote Blog", the blog of "Warren Meyer, a small business owner in Phoenix, Arizona" with "the same attention span as an 8-year-old boy mainlining Hershey Bars" qualifies as any more authoritative than my [[LiveJournal|LJ]]? (Hint: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.") --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 20:00, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:He seems to know what he's talking about. Why are you impugning his character, instead of trying to rebut '''even one thing he says'''? (Must I write an article on [[Liberal cheating]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::Must I write an article on [[Conservatives breaking the rules they created]]? I'm not "impugning his character", I'm questioning his qualification and authority to comment on politics (and now Global Warming, as I [[Edward Wegman|recently noticed]]). It's a blog. By a small business owner whose political involvement amounts to... "running recreation facilities on government lands". Whoop-dee-do! He's an expert!
::Here's a thought: I seem to know what I'm talking about. If I create a blog and write my opinion on it, can I quote myself here on Conservapedia, too?
::Seriously, you broke the commandment. I don't ''have'' to rebut his "point" about terror-supporting liberals who realized that dumb people won't fasten their seat belts unless it's written in some law. (But since I'm around: Being "pro-choice" does not equate being pro-"lawless society in which everybody can choose to do whatever he likes") That guy is not authority. It's just his opinion. If his opinion really is so terribly true (oh noes) then you surely can find an authoritative source and actually write an article instead of just copy-pasting a paragraph and calling it a day.
::Here's a good "Before I hit "Save page" check for you: Next time you "write an article" like that, ask yourself this: "If DHayes did the same for the other end of the political spectrum, would I slap him?"
::On second thought, maybe I'll just write [[Conservatives and life]] where I'll briefly rant about how conservatives are inconsistent because they are pro-life and pro-death-sentence. Should I write a first draft on LJ first? ;)
::(Disclaimer: Harsher tone than usual because I don't react well to implied potential accusations of hypocrisy and cheating.) --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 20:30, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't this be in an essay page or something, rather than the main namespace? Its presence here implies it is an encyclopedia article, when it is a quoted opinion piece.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:15, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:A single quote. Maybe it is... a work in progress? To be completed in more detail later (or, if after some time that seems unlikely to occur, just moved to a more appropriate space). I'll offer the benefit of the doubt and assume so. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I asked if you disagreed with '''what he said''', not whether you liked him. I'm no more authoritative than the Coyote blogger, and no one disputes '''my''' authority to contribute to this encyclopedia.

Are you concerned with truth, or is everything a struggle for power between rival doctrines with you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:00, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you meant me with that reply to nobody-in-particular? I didn't say whether I ''like'' him. I merely keep pointing at the Commandment that says that we shouldn't use posted opinions by sources with no authority. '''That guy has no authority in the fields of politics or global warming.''' Period.
:You can argue day and night about whether his opinion is right or wrong, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that his opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. Are we going to quote every random guy with a blog now? (I know, I know, the answer most likely will be "No, we will only quote every random guy with a blog who supports the conservative position.")
:Nobody disputes your authority. You're a sysop, and you have the power to block anybody who disputes your authority. Kinda like few people argue with the guy who is waving around a loaded shotgun. Don't mistake the absence of protest with an absence of dispute.
:But even though I hop on thin ice now, I have to point out that you created a few ridiculously useless articles. I'm sorry, but somebody has to say it.
:This is one of them: The entire thing consists of a quote from a blog that is in no way authoritative. Another one would be "[[two meters]]". I think that if any non-sysop had created that one, they would have received a warning or a block, and the article would have been deleted. You being a senior sysop gives you a level of protection and authority that others don't have, and you apparently take this power for granted.
:I'm concerned about factual accuracy and about the rules of this site (because unlike you, I ''will'' get warned/blocked for breaking them). Stop making it look as if I keep trying to mess with your ideology. I would have made the same complaint if you had quoted a blog saying "Liberals are great! Screw conservatives!". Is it that bad or unusual that somebody openly wonders about the quality of sources? --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 22:33, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

For the third time, do you disagree with what he says, or are you simply trying to censor it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:I'm aware of no liberal, in my 26 years of life, who has supported terrorists. This is a disgusting display of partisanship and unscholarly drivel. For shame.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Conflict of interest

2008-03-13T02:38:41Z

PhoenixWright: New page: A '''conflict of interest''' arises when a party asked to impartially administer justice or mediate a dispute in fact has a vested interest in a dispute, or where a party's inside info...

A '''conflict of interest''' arises when a party asked to impartially administer [[justice]] or mediate a dispute in fact has a vested interest in a dispute, or where a party's inside information into a dispute would color her judgment in an unfair manner. For example, a judge with [[stock]] holdings in a [[corporation]] which appears before her as a [[defendant]] must recuse herself from the proceedings; similarly, an attorney with holdings in his opponent's ventures must recuse himself, too.

[[category:ethics]]

No-action letter

2008-03-13T02:14:02Z

PhoenixWright: a start

A '''no-action letter''' is a statement issued by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] advising a [[corporation]] as to its rights and the legality of its possible actions. The letter is not a binding administrative position, and may be repudiated by the agency, and is subject to [[judicial review]], but it is often said to be a "95% guarantee" of the legality of corporate action.

[[category:Corporations]]

Proxy voting

2008-03-13T02:07:17Z

PhoenixWright:

The practice of allowing a [[senator]] to cast a [[vote]] in [[committee]] for an absent Senator. [[United States Senate|Senate]] Rule XXVI provides that proxies may not be voted when the absent Senator has not been informed of the matter on which he is being recorded and has not requested that he be so recorded.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/proxy_voting.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

In addition, the term refers to the solicitation, obtainer, and casting of votes at a [[shareholder|shareholder's meeting]] by "proxy," meaning that the shareholder does not actually appear, but vests authority to cast votes in a particular manner with either the [[board of directors]], or alternative "proxy slate" candidates.
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Senate Terms]]
[[category:Corporations]]

Siegfried Line

2008-03-10T00:51:46Z

PhoenixWright: typo

The '''Siegfried Line''' (German: ''Westwall'') was a line of fortifications erected by the government of Nazi Germany in the 1930s to protect its western frontier with France and Belgium; it ran largely parallel with the French [[Maginot Line]], extending from Kleve (near the Dutch city of [[Nijmegen]]) to the Swiss border. During the early days of the [[Second World War]] (the so-called [[Phony War]]) the line was mocked in a British popular song:

''We're going to hang out the washing on the Siegfried Line.

''Have you any dirty washing, mother dear?''

''We're gonna hang out the washing on the Siegfried Line''

'''cause the washing day is here.''

[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Category talk:Liberals

2008-03-10T00:37:45Z

PhoenixWright:

I propose a new page, called [[Liberal generalizations]]. The content should go something like this:
{{cquote|[[Liberal|Liberals]] tend to make gross over-generalizations of their ideological opponents, attributing grossly unfavorable qualities to them and demonizing conservatives as incapable of feeling [[liberal friendship|friendship]]. On the contrary, there is no known example of conservatives over-generalizing and demonizing liberals.}}
Tell me what you think.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
==Being nice to each other==
Then do you disagree about [[the Greatest Commandment]] being applicable, and seeing to cut against your behavior here?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 20:37, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Category talk:Liberals

2008-03-10T00:37:37Z

PhoenixWright:

I propose a new page, called [[Liberal generalizations]]. The content should go something like this:
{{cquote|[[Liberal|Liberals]] tend to make gross over-generalizations of their ideological opponents, attributing grossly unfavorable qualities to them and demonizing conservatives as incapable of feeling [[liberal friendship|friendship]]. On the contrary, there is no known example of conservatives over-generalizing and demonizing liberals.}}
Tell me what you think.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
==Being nice to each other==
Then do you disagree about [[the greatest commandment]] being applicable, and seeing to cut against your behavior here?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 20:37, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Category:Liberals

2008-03-10T00:21:14Z

PhoenixWright:

While often political tensions will flare, all political affiliations ought remember [[the Greatest Commandment]].
[[Category: Politics]]

The Greatest Commandment

2008-03-10T00:18:45Z

PhoenixWright:

'''The greatest Commandment''' is set forth in Chapter 22 of the [[Gospel of Matthew]]:<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com/</ref>

:36 "Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of [[Moses]]?" 37 [[Jesus]] replied, "''''You must love the Lord your [[God]] with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind'''.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ''''Love your neighbor as yourself.'''' 40 All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." (New Living Translation)

It follows from this that the primary objective of evil is to distract, prevent and obstruct this devotion to the Lord and to others, while the primary objective of every good Christian ought to be to show love and compassion to his or her fellow [[soul|souls]].<ref>Regardless of political affiliation, as well.</ref>

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[category:New Testament]]
[[category:Liberals]]

A New Commandment

2008-03-10T00:17:38Z

PhoenixWright: Redirecting to The Greatest Commandment

#REDIRECT[[The Greatest Commandment]]

Prejudice

2008-03-10T00:14:28Z

PhoenixWright: /* See Also */

'''Prejudice''' is an attitude towards another [[human]] or thing that substantiates itself without evidence, it typically results from a hostile nature towards [[race|racial]], [[religion|religious]], non-religious or national group - however, the prejudice can be positive or negative.<ref name='dictionarydefinition'>{{cite web|work=Dictionary.com|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice|title=prejudice|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=2007-09-30|quote= any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable."; "unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group."}}</ref> "North America, Australia, and New Zealand are among the few places on earth where prejudice is not routine."<ref>[http://www.asia-pacific-connections.com/korean_preferences.html]</ref>

One form of prejudice is to infer something about an entire community from the actions of one member of a community. For example, a form of prejudice would be to suggest that all [[liberal|liberals]] are [[deceit|deceitful]], based on the actions of one or two avowed "liberals." Similarly, it would also be unfair prejudice to assume that all [[Christian|Christians]] are as hateful as [[Fred Phelps]].
==References==
{{reflist}}
==See Also==
*[[Discrimination]]
*[[Golden Rule]]

[[category:politics]]

Prejudice

2008-03-10T00:06:20Z

PhoenixWright:

Talk:Conservapedia terms

2008-03-06T22:33:48Z

PhoenixWright: /* Swift-Boating reversion */

== Minister's son ==

Yes, okay, I can grant that this term was invented here. But why? Isn't it just different wording for what has long been known as a PK, or ''Preacher's kid''? Perhaps I should invent the term Missionary's Son, despite the term MK or ''Missionary's kid'' already being in long use? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Not familiar with "preacher's kid," and that sounds slightly derogatory. We wouldn't say "Kid of Man" instead of "Son of Man," would we? The [[Minister's son]] is to describe an insight that [[liberal]]s deny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:03, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:: maybe we could borrow from [[Dusty Springfield]] and have "Son of a Preacher Man" ;-) [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 09:05, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::PK is usually used as a derogatory term, while Minister's son is being used on CP as a complimentary description. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::: No, although I can understand why Andy though so, PK is not a derogatory term at all. Well, it may be used that way by some, but it is (relatively) commonly used by PKs (and MKs) themselves. Just have a look at the [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-33%2CGGLG%3Aen-GB&q=PK+MK+preacher+kid+missionary&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en Google hits for "PK MK preacher kid missionary"]. Admittedly it is not used to refer to people who have made significant accomplishments, but apart from that, and that it is not limited to males, it means essentially the same thing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Also, you can purchase a range of PK and MK clothing and other items! [http://www.cafepress.com/peopleacronyms/3007626][http://www.cafepress.com/peopleacronyms/3008395] Andy, you're going to have to list this under "something I've learnt today"!! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: OK, the uses on the links you cite are not derogatory, but they are not complimentary either. Like the word "kid" itself, it is disfavored in an educational context like ours here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Swift-Boating reversion==
Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed in an original manner by one or more editors on Conservapedia. 
[[Swift-Boating]] was developed in an original manner by me. On Conservapedia, it's telling the truth about Liberals. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:Actually, you did not develop it in an original manner. Your article was created on February 24th. The definition you provide was taken, verbatim, from the Michelle Malkin article on February 21st. You didn't develop anything. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 17:16, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::Even though the word was already defined, we are using it here to describe Liberals - not just Democrats. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:20, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::So by expanding it from "Democrats" to "Liberals", you are honestly suggesting that you developed it in an original manner? If I change the word Republicans to conservatives in an entry---I've "developed" a new entry? Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. I'm calling for the judges, b/c that obvious rip-off from the Malkin article doesn't pass as original.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 17:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::And to add, Crocoite---you didn't use it here to describe Liberals. In the "original" entry---you have it defining Democrats. It's a quote from the Malkin article. You didn't develop anything! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 17:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It doesn't have to pass any ''liberal'' smell test btw. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Should I make a "liberal smell test" article?
:::::By the by, I think by "smell test," he meant, " doesn't seem even colorably to have been invented by you." It was just slang.
:::::See, now you're [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Swift-Boating&curid=59428&diff=400081&oldid=400069 just forcing it.] I'm not sure that ''ex-post'' invention, and unique usage by one editor (the very one who claims to have invented it) should count. Crocoite, cut your losses and call it a day.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 17:33, 6 March 2008 (EST)

90/10 rule

2008-03-06T21:59:30Z

PhoenixWright:

The '''90/10 rule''', unique to [[Conservapedia]], authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive talk, bickering, [[last wordism]], and other unproductive activity. Specifically, as has been stated in the [[rules]] since soon after the formation of [[Conservapedia]]:

:Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account

The '''90/10 rule''' is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the [[mobocracy]] that runs rampant on other sites, such as [[Wikipedia]]. It also effectively silences dissenters who ask hard-to-answer questions. Implementation is simple and application is swift, although arbitrary and capricious, and seemingly only applied when an administrator feels threatened.

[[category:Conservapedia]]

Essay:How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War

2008-03-06T20:28:06Z

PhoenixWright:

{{essay|AmerICan}}
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|right|thumb|300px|President Ronald Wilson Reagan]]

From [[Harry Truman]] to [[Jimmy Carter]], the policy when dealing with the [[Soviet Union]] was containment. Containment failed. The ultimate goal of the Soviet empire was a global [[Communism|communist]] revolution, therefore the Soviets could never have been contained. When [[Ronald Reagan]] came into office, he initiated a policy of confronting the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the "détente" policy of the 1970s.

Reagan advocated a radical agenda: challenge the Soviets everywhere. Economically, politically, militarily, and especially psychologically. Not just coexist with the Soviets, but defeat them. His strategy for an endgame to the [[Cold War]] was that there would be no coexistence with the Soviets. From beginning to end, the goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

Reagan and his team devised a plan. The secret plan was to dismember the Soviet Union brick by brick. It would be coercive. Confront the Soviet head on to fight and win a protracted four part war.

The first part was a war of action. The Reagan administration used paramilitary ops, covert action, small unit combat, and simly taking the torch to the enemy. The instruments were anti-communist [[Nicaragua]]n freedom fighters, anti-communist [[Afghanistan|Afghan]] freedom fighters and anti-communist [[Poland|Polish]] freedom fighters.

The second part was a war of material. Reagan began a massive re-armament based on high-technology that obsoleted a generation of Soviet weaponry. Before Reagan took office, U.S. defense technology had fallen badly behind the Soviets during the Jimmy Carter administration. The defense upgrade include a 600 ship [[United States Navy|Navy]], new [[United States Army|Army]] divisions, tanks, planes, and missiles. Under the orders of Reagan, [[Caspar Weinberger]] cleared out the Carter [[Department of Defense|Defense Department]], instilled an esprit de corps within the ranks, and rebuilt the military as an instrument for the Soviets to fear. The method was unpredictable. Incursions into [[Russia]]n airspace, sending B-52s in attack formation over the North Pole, disrupting naval exercises. The weapons build-up forced the Soviets to increase military spending, freeing the [[CIA]] to inflict massive damage in [[Afghanistan]] and [[Central America]] without obvious U.S. involvement.

The third part of the plan was a war of ideas. Reagan recognized that mass communications was the new most important instrument. He used Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Marti; bombarding the captive nations with broadcasts, embedding coded messages for the leaders of resistance movements, secretly distributing [[Koran]]s and pamphlets and that detailed the ongoing Soviet abuse of [[Islam|Muslims]]. Reagan knew that the struggle against communism was not simply between two political ideologies, but it was fundamentally about core beliefs and values and faith in a higher power. So when he changed the radio stations and made them voices of advocacy, he also added religious programming. Particular the [[Catholic]] mass was provided to listeners in [[Poland]] and that was a very energizing and mobilizing influence in a country where Catholicism and resistance to communism worked well together. They were also providing information and spiritual food to Muslims in Soviet Central Asia. They were printing brochures and they were having radio programs that talked about the incompatibility between [[Islam]] and the forced militant [[atheism]] of communism.

The fourth and final part of the plan was a war of [[money]]. Reagan devised a plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Reagan had always known that the Soviet economy was no more than the size of [[California]]'s and CIA analysis proved him right. There 500 billion dollars paled in comparison to the 2.5 trillion dollars of the [[United States]]. Reagan used this discrepancy to America's advantage with economic warfare on a scale never seen before. One fought with a new weapon. Reagan made the dollar a weapon for the first time in Soviet history. The Soviet system had been in crisis since 1917, but they had always figured out a way in the [[Kremlin]] to have the West bail them out. Reagan saw to it that that was not going to happen this time. So it was a struggle about dollars and credits as much as it was about tanks and missiles. Reagan used oil through a partnership with [[Saudi Arabia]]. The Soviet Union's hard currency came from a single source: its mineral wealth of [[oil]] and [[gas]]. Reagan secretly sent William Casey, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Riyadh to strong arm the Saudis into tripling oil production, cutting prices by fifty percent. Casey successful and got the Saudis to go along. Reagan's objective was an economic boom in the West and a crippling blow to the struggling Soviet economy. The desperate Soviets needed hard cash, so they resorted to gas fields in [[Siberia]]. There solution was a 4000 mile pipeline connecting the fields to the markets in Western Europe. The prize was billions of cubic feet of gas flowing from Siberia and therefore tens of billions in hard currency flowing back to [[Moscow]].

This was an appropriate time to launch a more strategic initiative designed to go after the Soviet Union's dominating of Western [[Europe]]'s natural gas markets and major American conglomerates really had no stomach for that at all. In the end, there interest in profits oversees. There was enormous pressure that was brough to bare by companies that were going to be damaged by Reagan's economic war against the Soviet empire. This economic warfare would be applied to wherever the Soviets struck.

The first of these was Poland, which as the epicenter of the Soviet empire and they considered it the crossroads of Europe. It is where all the historic invasions of [[Russia]] had taken place. Tanks rolled onto the streets of Warsaw, road blocks where everywhere, 3.4 million telephones were rendered dead, 250 thousand military personnel deployed. The Soviets determined that controlling and dominating Poland was vital to protecting the survival of the Soviet empire. Martial law was declared, the Solidarity organization was banned and Lech Walesa and five thousand activists were arrested. With the rise of Solidarity, for the first time in the Cold War there was a challenge to their authority in Poland. They installed a puppet government in the country. After the Soviets backed a coup in Poland and declared martial law, Reagan was furious and determined to see Solidarity succeed. The secret funding for Solidarity commenced. It payed for the tools of subversion: printing presses and radio transmitters. Reagan decided that the Soviet sponsorship of martial law in Poland need to be responded to with economic sanctions. Reagan cancelled trade agreements, made grain sales tougher, and restricted credit. The Europeans saw Reagan's tenacity and knew he would not give in. So they fell in line, tightening their lending to the regime in Moscow.

Reagan also went out of his way to deliver Western Europe from being a sitting duck to the Soviet missiles that were aimed directly toward it. One of Reagan's early and most important goals was to station missiles in Europe to provide a defense for the people of Western Europe. In the [[United Kingdom]], Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] mobilized Western Europe to deploy the new generation of nuclear weapons.

Reagan's game plan had been to only meet with the Soviets on his terms, when the power had shifted in America's favor. By the 1985, that was happening. In the Strategic Defense Initiative's embryonic stage, it had new partners: [[Japan]], [[Germany|West Germany,]] [[Italy]], [[Israel]], and the United Kingdom. In Poland, Solidarity had refused to surrender. In Nicaragua, the anti-communist freedom fighters fought on. In [[Africa]] and [[Southeast Asia]] anti-communist CIA covert operations were underway. In Afghanistan, the simple goal of making the Soviets retreat in disgrace was working. The Reagan war plan was now beginnng to converge; the military build-up, the cover actions, the economic sanctions, and the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The combined effects on the Soviet economy was costing the Soviet empire billions. The Soviets had increased defense spending by 45 percent, billions were lost in hard currency, billions more was spent on bolstering nervous third world communist dictators and all they had to show for it was dead young Russian and other Soviet citizens shipped home from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Reagan's leverage had worked and the Kremlin was now backed into a corner. After less than five years of Ronald Reagan, the hardliners of the Soviet leadership could no longer hide the economic damage of their rule. This gave the reformers an opening. [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] has elected by a one vote majority in the [[politburo]] because they knew the only way they could compete with the United States and meet the Reagan challenge is by changing. So Gorbachev was brought into power in response to Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was really responsible for bringing Gorbachev into power.

[[Category:Ronald Reagan]]

Talk:Race

2008-03-06T06:12:23Z

PhoenixWright: /* Ethnicity */

== Since the Great Flood ==

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Its a [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative fact]], see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives ''wish''it were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a ''fact''--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neanderthal==
They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Only if it says so in the Bible. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?==
Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been ''wrong''? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It was science that gave <s>mankind</s> personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's ''strength'' is that it changes with new discoveries...-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Good point.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of '''this brilliant knowledge''', where are they to be found? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes.
Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by <s>ignorant laymen</s> politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) Oh, so they really don't give a rip. So much for the morality of scientists.

B) Precisely the point.

C) See response to A. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:If you're so angry at science, RobS, then don't use it anymore, turn off your computer, and stop posting at CP :-/. Otherwise you might just have to accept that the issue's a little more complicated than you'd like to think.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

While you're at it: don't wear synthetic clothing, never go to a doctor, don't drive a car, don't use electricity, don't use a cellphone, don't fly on airplanes, don't take the bus, don't eat food that's not from the nature shop, don't read books or newspapers (you're allowed to have a papyrus Bible), don't wear a watch, don't wear glasses, don't take the train, don't use deodorant, shampoo or soap, don't go to the movies, don't take pictures, don't paint your house, don't use paper, don't use anything made out of plastic, don't use a bank account...

Well there's not much you can do without science, it seems...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::You all might want to consider taking it down a notch. Any tool for manipulating or understanding the world, be it science or a ball peen hammer, can be misused. We obviously cannot live in this world in any reasonable way without science...the next world, well, a different story. But now, we are here, so we must strive to use all of our tools morally. You shouldn't slam a hammer into someone's head just because it is the right tool for the job. You shouldn't alter science to fit an ideology, just because it is a good tool for the job.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*''People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.''
:That does not mean scientists should not be held accountable, nor that they do not have a moral responsibility. Nor that they do not need oversight and direction from poltical policymakers. Nor does it mean when a dangerous regime is using scientists without accountability to the rest of the international community, with the likelihood that scientific knowledge of how to produce [[WMD]] is being passed on to unknown persons, that policymakers, (and for that matter, the general public outside the scientific community) does not have the power and responsibility to act in those circumstances.

:To put it bluntly, just as the Church has more less been brought in subordination to the State under the so-called "separation of church and state doctrine", from a pure publicy policy standpoint, science is not our master, it is our slave. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:32, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right...? Straw man alert. No one's calling on you to worship science. Just recognize which, between science or faith, is better at empirical testing.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Mormon]] church policy==

Cut from article:

:The [[Mormon]] church supported racist policies into the 1960s.

We need to specify what these policies were. The word "racist" is vague. Did they, for example, say blacks are the devil? Or not allow blacks to join? Or allow blacks to join but not to be leaders? Or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Mormom theology held that blacks were inferior based on the unique characteristics of Mormon cosmology, that suggested blacks as the betrayers of Jesus in his stay in the New World. Right?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question, one would suppose, does Mormon revelation come from God, or for man?

::Are you ready to take that whole question on ''before'' stating here Mormonism is a fraud? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't matter. Racism from God is just as evil as racism from man.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Are you ready to take that whole question of God being a racist before making insertions here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This is not a religious debate. It is fact that the Mormon books, as interpreted & effectuated by the Church through the 1960, led to racist policies. Cite? "Under the Banner of Heaven."-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:You made it a religious debate when you trashed Mormans & impugned God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I admire Mormans, and Mormans that I know acknowledge their history and have learned from it. Hmm..learn from history...what a good idea...[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 21:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=prev&oldid=162595 This] edit doesn't seem to improve the article, and I concur with its removal. Perhaps it belongs in an article on racism instead. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes it does. And unless Speaker wishes to take on the whole LDS Church in the LDS entry, I'm not certain we should use it as an example in the [[Racism]] entry. What is clear is, this article in its present structure needs to be reevaluated. The intro says "scientifically", notions of "race" are bunk. The legal subsection says the law recognizes bunk, to wit, Affirmative Action laws, or as anybody who holds a drivers license knows. Then the Religion section is simply a hit on Religion because supposedly Religion is the source of racism, yet this claim is made with no foundation, and doesn't belong in this article anyway. The whole thing needs study and discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

Cut from article:

:Since the beginning of mankind, human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] now believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]] share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

This implies that human beings have evolved. Is there any scientific evidence for this?

If the point is not [[Human evolution]] but just the idea that skin color might change over periods of thousands of years due to [[natural selection]], then say it that way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:According to [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:[[User:Karajou|Karajou]], who is a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]], has instructed us that the [[Bible]] is a reliable historical and scientific document [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here], consequently the original version should be reinstated.

::Since the [[Great Flood]] human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]], the descendants of [[Noah]] and his family, share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nonsense. The passage does not cite the Bible in any substantive way.

::Genesis does indicate that God separated (confused) the language of the people building the Tower of Babel - but this is an anti-evolution argument. It happened due to supernatural intervention.

::There's also some mention of animal breeding in the story of Jacob. Laban tried to trick him, but God blessed Jacob's efforts. Also a "design" argument which opposes evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The Bible does not mention race at all, at least not the color aspect from it. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 describes where on earth people had settled at following the Flood. Simon the Cyrenian was instructed to carry the Cross; Phillip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch; Paul was a Jew from Tarsus. The Bible will state where people are from, and there will be a few cultural aspects thrown in, but it says nothing regarding race and color. The way I see it, there's only one race on earth: the human race. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The passage tells us that Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]] are the descendants of [[Noah]] and his family. The only humans left after the [[Great Flood]]. Since we are all descendants of the same family it is no surprise that we are very very similar. What [[Scientists]] believe merely confirms that. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:01, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Culture and law==

Cut from article:

:In constructing or deconstructing racial barriers, the law makes reference frequently to different kinds of "race." '''Cultural''' race is race based on a unique culture. Affirmative action post-''Grutter'' makes appeal to cultural race as a partial justification for affirmative action. '''Historical''' race makes references to the shared experiences of a people that have enhanced or degraded their status as community members. Creating an Israeli nation, for example, is a reference to the genocide & discrimination that Jews have endured as a historical race.

This isn't gibberish, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. Please write plainly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ethnicity==
"Ethnicity" mistakenly redirects here, even though they are two very distinct concepts. "Race" is the grouping together of people based on superficial characteristics (i.e. black, white, asian, and so on). "Ethnicity" refers to grouping based upon shared cultural, historical, or similar heritages. Conflating the two is a very common error of ignorance, so we should not encourage it.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:51, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:It as an error of fatigue; thank you or correcting me. I normally know better. An embarassing mistake to have made. Thanks Tom Moore!-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 01:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-03-06T03:44:37Z

PhoenixWright: /* Tate */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] is not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Racial censorship

2008-03-06T00:02:37Z

PhoenixWright: /* Commonality of Usage */

'''Racial censorship''' is the stifling of criticism of [[affirmative action]] by declaring such criticism to be bigoted.

==Origin of the Term==
'''Racial censorship''' was the title of a column by black Professor Walter Williams to decry the name-calling of [[Rush Limbaugh]] for suggesting that a black quarterback was playing for reasons of social concern rather than merit:<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/censorship.html</ref>

:Rush Limbaugh's comment on ESPN regarding Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb was, "I don't think he's been that good from the get go. I think what we've had here is a little of social concern from the [[NFL]]. The media has been desirous that a black quarterback do well." Kweisi Mfume, [[NAACP]]'s president, criticized Limbaugh's remarks as bigoted, ignorant and racist. [[Democrat]] presidential hopefuls chimed in with their criticism and Eagles' owner Jeffrey Lurie called Limbaugh's comments "despicable."

:... Limbaugh's statement is opinion that can be characterized as correct or incorrect but racist, no.

:The true tragedy of the flap over Limbaugh's remarks is that it's reflective of an ongoing process in our increasingly [[politically correct]] world where people are losing the freedom to say what they think lest they be subject to intimidation, extortion and other costs by our well-established grievance industry.

==Commonality of Usage==
A [[Google]] search of the term reveals less than 500 hits, all of them seemingly attributable either to [[Rush Limbaugh]], the above opinion column, or pieces ''about'' either of those topics.<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22racial+censorship%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Google search for "Racial censorship".]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>