Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Women under the Taliban

2009-01-29T11:41:29Z

Purpetualtruth:

Hi. I, [[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]], crated this article on [[Tuesday]], [[January]] 6th, 2009. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 19:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)
==updating==
this is nicely cited but incomplete. Women still are prejudiced under current conditions. Even post invasion sexism and abuse of women goes on. <ref>http://www.rawa.org/gangrape.htm</ref>, sorry wrong link. This more succinctly explains the current situation<ref>http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/11/05/a-7-year-old-girl-raped.html</ref>

Talk:Women under the Taliban

2009-01-29T11:00:40Z

Purpetualtruth:

Women under the Taliban

2009-01-29T10:55:52Z

Purpetualtruth: took out assertion by editor not supported by link.

'''Women under the Taliban''' were extremely oppressed. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rawa.org/rawa.html|title=RAWA, about us.|language=English.|accessdate=2009-01-06}}</ref>

==Dress Code==
Women under the Taliban were not allowed to go outside without a [[burqa]] on<ref name="Marsden"/> and not allowed to wear brightly colored clothing as it might be viewed as sexually attractive (according to the Taliban)<ref name="islamfortoday1"/>.

==Education==
Women were forbidden to study or to be educated after the age of eight. And until the age of eight they were only permitted to study the [[Qur'an]]. There were underground schools to teach women and girls, such as the "Golden Needle Sewing School", but if caught, the teachers in the school faced execution.<ref name=Synovitz>Synovitz, Ron. [http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticleprint/2004/03/176a7386-97d6-4f9b-bec7-b403f88633cc.html "Afghanistan: Author Awaits Happy Ending To 'Sewing Circles Of Herat'"], ''Radio Free Europe'', March 31, 2004.</ref>

==Employment==
Women were not allowed to work at all<ref name="Gohari"/>. The only women exempt from this were women in the health care field. The women who worked in the health care field however, worked under very deprived conditions<ref name="Marsden"/>.

==Mobility==
Women were forbidden to go outside their homes or use public transportation without a male relative to chaperon them.
Girls in a female-run orphanage (the female staff were let go) were not allowed outside for a year for recration or play<ref name="Marsden"/>. Women were also banned from riding motorcycles and bikes, even with their male relative present. There were segregated busses to prevent men and women from riding on the same bus<ref name="rawa1"/>.

==Health Care==
Male doctors were no longer allowed to treat women, as they previously had<ref name="Latifa">Latifa ''My forbidden face: Growing up under the Taliban''. UK: Virago Press pp29-107.</ref>. Some women established informal "clinics" in their homes<ref name="Latifa"/>. There was only one hospital that women could attend<ref name="Rashid" p.71/>.

==Punishment==
The Taliban often forced extreme punishment on women during their reign. Some examples are:
*In October of 1996 a woman had the tip of her finger cut off for wearing nail varnish.
*When the Taliban raided the house of a woman who ran an informal school, they took her children and beat them, threw the woman down a flight of stairs (which caused her to break her leg), and then imprisoned her. They also threatened to stone the poor woman to death if she did not sign a "declaration of loyalty" to the Taliban and its laws.<ref name="Latifa"/>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.afghan-web.com/woman The Plight of the Afghan Woman]
* [http://www.rawa.org/index.php Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)]

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Taliban]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Afghanistan]]

Talk:Capital punishment

2009-01-29T08:08:55Z

Purpetualtruth: /* christian view */

I think somebody with a good theological background should take a look at the Bible section of this. A better explanation than the standard Jesus/adultress argument is needed as to why most Christians don't support capital punishment for adultery, homosexuality etc. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: A good entry on Capital punishment would be welcome. By the way, that adultress story in the Bible is not authentic. See [[Adultress Story - Original Work]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Especially after reading that a couple weeks ago, I think it's clear that that should have no place in this article. It's clear that somebody who opposes capital punishment wrote that section to imply that Christians should not support capital punishment, and I like to try to avoid making normative statements as much as possible. I changed it for now just to say that most Christians no longer follow every rule in the book of Leviticus. I'd like to add a section or new page about the Christian debate over capital punishment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I took out the biblical explanation for Christians generally not supporting capital punishment for non-murder offenses. In fact, hardly anyone supports capital punishment for non-murder offenses. No obscure explanation is needed. I am sure there are many reasons. I also took out "capital punishment severely violates the 6th commandment", as most Jews and Christians do not hold that view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the 6th commandment means "thou shalt not murder", not "thou shalt not kill". Given the rest of the Old Testament, saying that it bans capital punishment is a biblically untenable position. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

DanH, does the 6th commandment say "thou shalt not kill" or not? This page is about the truth and not about your opinion what it means. Jesus goes even further: ""You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. "" Mt 5:21-22. Every modern state has enough means of punishments, which obsoletes capital punishments in most cases with few exceptions of extreme situation. The capital punishment was necessary to establish law and order in historic times, but is mostly obsolete nowadays. This is not just my humble opinion, but catholic catechism. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref> RSchlafly's argument that most Jews and Christians do not hold that view is void. Firstly, views held by most Jews and Christians do and have changed, but this pages are about the truth. Secondly, his statement rather reflects his opinion, since most Jews and Christians actually object capital punishment. Any relativism of the 6th commandment also relativates opposing abortion. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 13:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: The article is about truth, not your POV. It now says, "On the basis of the 5th commandment "Thou shall not kill" [4] the vatican clearly repudiates the use of capital punishment." That is just not true, and the reference does not support it. It is not acceptable for you to put in some Biblical interpretation that has been rejected by Christians and Jews for 1000s of years. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Consider that capital punishment is proscribed for certain cases in the same book of the Bible that has the Ten Commandments. Given that this is the case, we need to look for the most consistent interpretation of scripture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The catholic catechism is very clear on this and the reference does clearly support this: paragraph 2267 in the chapter capital punishment ends with "cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent". This does not contradict the other cases of the scripture, but simply leaves them to the now historical necessity to establish law and order. The vatican official standpoint is very clear and resulted in written support of UN initiatives to abolish capital punishment <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_02111999_death-penalty_en.html</ref> and <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html</ref>. The latter starts with: "The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death." I think this is clear enough. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

LeanrTogether - let's not Edit War. My points are prefectly valid and logically consistent. Debate me here, and we'll see where we get to. Then we can edit. [[User:Endlesspossibility|Endlesspossibility]]

:The usual standard is to go here first if there are any difficulties, but the edit is removed until concensus is reached. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:00, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

OK, that's fine with me. So - what's the problem with my entry? Do you or do you not agree that there is a logical inconsistency with the death penalty? I am not making a pro- or anti- death penalty argument, I am simply pointing out that in many ways, the death penalty is a very complex argument, and there are many prime inconsistencies inherent in the policy. [[User:Endlesspossibility|Endlesspossibility]] 14:04, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Your argument from the start is flawed in that you draw a conclusion that the rights of the individual trump those of the state and then apply it to all cases. I am not aware of anyone who holds this position. As I stated, you create a strawman, then you knock it down. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, two things. First, I'm not drawing any conclusions. My point is one of logic, not morals, political position or the 'correctness' or not of the death penalty. Please outline to me an argument for the death penalty, from fundamentals, that is logically consistent. I'd be interested to read it.

Secondly, there are no strawmen in my posting. I see that term being used constantly on CP, and it's the typical argument used to simply avoid or remove debate. I would appreciate it if you did not quite so quickly remove valid content that you simply have not tried to understand, or disagree with. And please - do respond to my invitation for a logically cohernet argument. [[User:Endlesspossibility|Endlesspossibility]] 14:34, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:It's your logic I have difficulty with. It's faulty from its very first premise, and that is the premise that it uses to draw its conclusions. You ask for an argument for the death penalty, which has to make me ask why? Are you looking to put one in the article? I'm assuming you already know the general position. Execution gives closure to the family of the victims and acts as a deterrent for others and therefore saves other innocent lives. The question becomes how do you temper justice with mercy in a fallen world? Where is the line that is drawn to determine when it is appropriate to take life? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I've been banned for some reason, so this is the last you'll hear from me. Since I am now a sock, this comment will also likely be removed. However, "Where is the line that is drawn to determine when it is appropriate to take life?" is exactly the point I was trying to make. I would ask you to encourage debate over this article - many Christians disagree with the death penalty, and I'd love to see more debate here on the topic. I won't be back myself, obviously, but please understand that I meant very well, and wanted to see this Encyclopedia improve. It's sad that debate cannot be allowed here, but so be it. [[User:Refreshing|Refreshing]] 15:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry about your removal. You may yet get a chance to come back in the future, but it's important to understand what you are dealing with and what is desired here. Debate would usually be a separate article, not forced upon the capital punishment article itself. This is set up so people checking up capital punishment can get quick, factual information presented in a concise format that is easy to understand and flows well. Also, it is understood that the edit warring that is so common to the other pedia doesn't happen here. If an edit is reverted, then discussion in the talk page is appropriate to find something that works. Many of us have been around the block a few times and lived quite a bit of life; we are aware of the issues necessary for debate, but we also recognize where that should take place and where it should not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:02, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I removed this:
:One primary argument against deterrence holds that no one committing a murder expects to be caught. Therefore, the murder is committed irrespective of the consequences.
Who gives this silly argument? People who commit murder usually understand that they might
get caught. If so, then punishment is a deterrent. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:56, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:We could add your response to that. That way, we can still have your viewpoint, but still say we presented both sides. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:58, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:: It is not even a fair statement of the other side. I've heard people argue that murder is often a crime of passion, and people sometimes commit it regardless of the consequences. Hence punishment is not an effective deterrent for them, the argument goes. But nobody argues as in the article about murders not expecting to get caught. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I hope I don't offend you Dan, but I agree with RSchlafly's view. Someone I knew later committed planned murder and is currently in jail and I can tell you even as he tried to hide it the best that he could, he always feared getting caught. I'm not saying either position is the right one, but the argument does not do justice to the side wishing to remove the death penalty as it seems to be somewhat out of touch with human reality. Arguments based upon accidentally putting an innocent man to death, a just society should not sink to the level of those who would commit such an act, etc, would seem to present a stronger case. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:37, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Emerging" Country? ==

China? Russia is positively third world compared to China's economy. I wonder if that could be better stated? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
==Suggestion==
With the inclusion of issues (quotes) directly from the bible, I think this article should have a link to a Debate page. The topic of capital punishment and Christianity is one that should engender really well thought out, interesting debates. I don't really know, though, if i fully understand the roll of debate here - if it's just to discuss a page in a technical sense, or if it's to have fun discussing important Christian topics.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 15:08, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
==christian view==
I plan on writing an article on the christian view of capital punishment fully citing the bible and interpretations. Will link to pertinent section after article is finished.
--[[User:Purpetualtruth|Purpetualtruth]] 03:08, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Capital punishment

2009-01-29T08:08:41Z

Purpetualtruth:

User:Purpetualtruth

2009-01-29T08:05:23Z

Purpetualtruth:

Hello, my name is Alfred Wagner.
As my username states I aim for truth. I tend to edit out malicious language because I believe that facts speak for themselves and it is our job as a factual encyclopedia to make sure they are presented well and let them see the truth for themselves without being able to write off our evidence as 'biased'. I also plan to research and specialize in the motivations of liberals.

User:Purpetualtruth

2009-01-29T08:05:09Z

Purpetualtruth:

Hello, my name is Alfred Wagner
As my username states I aim for truth. I tend to edit out malicious language because I believe that facts speak for themselves and it is our job as a factual encyclopedia to make sure they are presented well and let them see the truth for themselves without being able to write off our evidence as 'biased'. I also plan to research and specialize in the motivations of liberals.

User:Purpetualtruth

2009-01-29T08:04:03Z

Purpetualtruth: New page: As my username states I aim for truth. I tend to edit out malicious language because I believe that facts speak for themselves and it is our job as a factual encyclopedia to make sure they...

As my username states I aim for truth. I tend to edit out malicious language because I believe that facts speak for themselves and it is our job as a factual encyclopedia to make sure they are presented well and let them see the truth for themselves without being able to write off our evidence as 'biased'. I also plan to research and specialize in the motivations of liberals.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

2009-01-29T08:01:27Z

Purpetualtruth: added reference

The '''Economic stimulus package''' is a 2009 bill by originally backed by President Bush<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0631744820080208</ref> and taken over by [[President Obama]] and the Democratic leadership to spend some $819 billion or more dollars to revive an ailing U.S. economy, battered by the [[Recession of 2008]]. It includes $275 billion in tax cuts, and the rest for spending on a very wide variety of projects.<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp David M. Herszenhorn, "Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency," ''New York Times'' Jan. 28, 2009]</ref>

"The strategy under this bill is to throw billions of dollars in every bureaucratic direction, and cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) during debate. Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded, "We need to compare the cost of this package against the cost of doing nothing. The cost of nothing would be catastrophic."<ref> See [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt And Naftali Bendavid, "House Passes Stimulus Package; $819 Billion Jolt to Economy Aims to Reshape Education, Health Care; Deficit to Soar," ''Wall Street Journal'' Jan. 29, 2009]</ref>

The stimulus package is aimed at preventing the economy from collapsing and restoring it to normal. Conservative critics claims it will do little to help the economy and is filled with non-essential spending. The [[Congressional Budget Office]] says $347 billion more in interest will be the result, which brings the total plan over 1 [[trillion]] dollars. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/special-groups-line-piece-stimulus/ Special-Interest Groups Line Up for a Piece of Stimulus] Fox News, January 28, 2009</ref>

==House==
The House of Representative passed the economic stimulus package January 28, 2009 by a vote of 244-188, and now the bill heads for the U.S. Senate. All Republicans cast a no vote as did eleven Democrats. It is expected the Senate will increase the amounts allocated for tax cuts.

==Non Essential==
The people in charge of spending tax dollars are set to spend like never before and special interest groups are poised to be the recipients. Some of the 'stimulus' works proposed;

* $25 million for new ATV trails
* $400 million for the [[National Endowment for the Arts]]
* $400 million for global warming research
* $30 billion has been set aside for infrastructure spending
* $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.
* $1.5 billion for a CO2 Reductions
* $3.5 billion for higher education facilities
* $400 million for [[HIV]] and chlamydia testing
* $150 million for The Smithsonian
* $81 billion for [[Medicaid]]
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
* $20 billion for food stamps
* $83 billion for the earned income credit.
* $54 billion will go to federal programs Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs
* $66 billion for education
* $650 million coupons to subsidize digital television conversion<ref>addref</ref>
* $572 million for Coast Guard improvements <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-stupidity-alert-460000coast-guard-job-15-bil-carbon-capturing-contest-more/ Stimulus stupidity alert] Michelle Malkin,January 28, 2009</ref>

Items removed from the House bill
* $200 million for new contraceptive service
* $20 million to renovate the National Mall

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Business]]

Comedy Central

2009-01-29T07:59:18Z

Purpetualtruth: edited out malicious adjectives. Facts speak for themselves.

'''Comedy Central''' is a left-slanting cable and satellite television channel which draws a large portion of its viewership from adolescents, such as the average [[public school]] student (who watches more than three hours of television daily).

Comedy Central features adult cartoons, including [[South Park]], and [[liberal]] programs including [[The Daily Show]] with [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Colbert Report|The Colbert Report]] with [[Stephen Colbert]]. The channel is based in the upper west side of [[Manhattan]].

==Shows==
*[[The Daily Show]]: A parody news show with an extreme [[leftist]] point-of-view, hosted by [[Jon Stewart]]. 
*[[The Colbert Report]]: A spin-off of the Daily Show, hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]] who satirically portrays conservative commentators, mocking them, portraying them as buffoons and inaccurately stating conservative values. 
*[[South Park]]: A cartoon based around the lives of four obscene elementary school children in a [[Colorado]] mountain town which pokes fun at pop-culture, traditional family values and politics. 

==Hypocritical censorship==

Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of [[South Park]]. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox_Network|Fox]] for refusing to depict Muhammad.

[[Category: Liberal Media]]

{{Liberalism}}

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

2009-01-29T07:57:16Z

Purpetualtruth: Added obama's takover of the plan, edited out malicious language and let facts speak for themselves

The '''Economic stimulus package''' is a 2009 bill by originally backed by President Bush and taken over by [[President Obama]] and the Democratic leadership to spend some $819 billion or more dollars to revive an ailing U.S. economy, battered by the [[Recession of 2008]]. It includes $275 billion in tax cuts, and the rest for spending on a very wide variety of projects.<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp David M. Herszenhorn, "Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency," ''New York Times'' Jan. 28, 2009]</ref>

"The strategy under this bill is to throw billions of dollars in every bureaucratic direction, and cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) during debate. Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded, "We need to compare the cost of this package against the cost of doing nothing. The cost of nothing would be catastrophic."<ref> See [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt And Naftali Bendavid, "House Passes Stimulus Package; $819 Billion Jolt to Economy Aims to Reshape Education, Health Care; Deficit to Soar," ''Wall Street Journal'' Jan. 29, 2009]</ref>

The stimulus package is aimed at preventing the economy from collapsing and restoring it to normal. Conservative critics claims it will do little to help the economy and is filled with non-essential spending. The [[Congressional Budget Office]] says $347 billion more in interest will be the result, which brings the total plan over 1 [[trillion]] dollars. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/special-groups-line-piece-stimulus/ Special-Interest Groups Line Up for a Piece of Stimulus] Fox News, January 28, 2009</ref>

==House==
The House of Representative passed the economic stimulus package January 28, 2009 by a vote of 244-188, and now the bill heads for the U.S. Senate. All Republicans cast a no vote as did eleven Democrats. It is expected the Senate will increase the amounts allocated for tax cuts.

==Non Essential==
The people in charge of spending tax dollars are set to spend like never before and special interest groups are poised to be the recipients. Some of the 'stimulus' works proposed;

* $25 million for new ATV trails
* $400 million for the [[National Endowment for the Arts]]
* $400 million for global warming research
* $30 billion has been set aside for infrastructure spending
* $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.
* $1.5 billion for a CO2 Reductions
* $3.5 billion for higher education facilities
* $400 million for [[HIV]] and chlamydia testing
* $150 million for The Smithsonian
* $81 billion for [[Medicaid]]
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
* $20 billion for food stamps
* $83 billion for the earned income credit.
* $54 billion will go to federal programs Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs
* $66 billion for education
* $650 million coupons to subsidize digital television conversion<ref>addref</ref>
* $572 million for Coast Guard improvements <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-stupidity-alert-460000coast-guard-job-15-bil-carbon-capturing-contest-more/ Stimulus stupidity alert] Michelle Malkin,January 28, 2009</ref>

Items removed from the House bill
* $200 million for new contraceptive service
* $20 million to renovate the National Mall

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Business]]