Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Reagan youth

2007-03-27T19:17:52Z

Reagan youth:

For the love of God, if you insist on leaving tasteless Nazi phrases on your user page, at least learn [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_heil how to spell them]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The misspelling makes it that extra little special better. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I copied directly from http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/reaganyouth.html, but I'll make the change now [[User:Reagan youth|Reagan youth]] 23:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:please don't

I find this rather offensive...am I alone? [[User:Richard|Richard]] 14:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:Don't worry, you're not. As a German, I find the usage of "Sieg heil!" ''extremely'' offensive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I have deleted the offensive material. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 15:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I replaced it with something less offensive, sorry for the offense.[[User:Reagan youth|Reagan youth]] 15:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Logical fallacy

2007-03-27T18:42:55Z

Reagan youth: /* Related References */

[[Image:X_mark.jpg|thumb|200px|right]]

A '''Logical fallacy''' is any argument that suffers from a crippling logical flaw.

[[Logic]] is a demanding discipline. Conclusions either follow from certain previously stated premises, or they do not. This is not, however, to say that a conclusion is always false if the argument supporting it is invalid. For example:

#All undergraduates are human.
#All sophomores are human.
#Therefore, all sophomores are undergraduates.

One could as easily argue that all undergraduates are also sophomores, and the argument would be equally valid--or invalid in this case. However, one can establish the truth of the conclusion in another way--in this case, by [[definition]].

Logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as lying. A ''lie'' in logic is a premise that one offers while knowing that it is false. False premises can still be part of valid arguments, but conclusions having false premises to support them will be unreliable. A logical fallacy, then, is a flawed argumental structure, one that would lead to an unreliable conclusion even when its premises are true.

The following is a catalog of logical fallacies, with each one given a separate heading, to make them easier to cite in other articles.

==Catalog of Logical Fallacies==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|type}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|type}}</nowiki> template to insert the above warning on a page containing a ''logical fallacy''. Replace the word "type" with the name of the fallacy to link the warning label to the appropriate page.
</table>
===Argumentum ad hominem===
([[Latin]]: "Argument directed toward the man"); An argument that attacks the character of one holding a contrary view, rather than attacking the view itself. ''Name-calling'' is a particularly crude form of this fallacy. ''Argumentum ad hominem'' is usually an attempt to accuse the other person of lying without saying so directly, or saying that his premises are somehow incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, or simply unreliable because they are self-serving. However, this is not good logic. If one suspects another of lying, then one should attempt to disprove the premises. One can raise a ''suspicion'' of deliberate falsehood on the part of another who has offered deliberate falsehood in the past. But the most that that can accomplish is to suggest that the other person's premises are unreliable and therefore require third-party corroboration.

===Overgeneralization===
An argument that attempts to apply a principle to circumstances beyond the scope of its original formulation or of any reliable demonstration. The application of [[Isaac Newton]]'s original theory of relative velocity (which is that it was simply additive) to speeds approaching that of light was an overgeneralization, as [[Albert Einstein]] would later show.

Overgeneralization also is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

([[Latin]]: "It does not follow"); An argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ([[Latin]] "Argument proceeding from clout"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

A classic example of argument from authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. This kind of argument also appears in commercial advertising or political electioneering.

===Proof by numbers===
This is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. "Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology. One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples, too many to mention here, of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] make two more.

===Proof by assertion===
An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]].

===Circular reasoning===
[[Circular reasoning]] is a form of proof-by-assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

===Argument from silence===
Argument from silence (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') is an assertion that a proposition is false merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to confirm it--or that a proposition is true merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to contradict it. "The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question.

This is the opposite extreme from "manufacturing facts to support a theory," described below. The best aid to striking a balance that avoids these two opposing fallacies is [[Occam's razor]].

===Proving too much===
A form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Double standard===
The unequal use of a criterion, and its different application in different cases. This is actually a form of [[hypocrisy]].

===Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong===
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]''

The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion.

===Manufacturing facts from a theory===
: ''Main article: [[Manufacturing facts from a theory]]''

The assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. We deal here with the assumption of a fact ''not in evidence.'' In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact ''have failed'', the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and "someone hasn't tried hard enough" to find it. This is ''especially'' true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" ''could not possibly exist.''

This is yet another form of proof-by-assertion, and is the source of many controversies in modern [[astronomy]], some of them strikingly bitter.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to aver (that is, assert as true) or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "Consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method.

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.

==== Reference related to the genetic fallacy ====
* [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]

===Tautology===
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

===Contradiction===
A [[contradiction]] is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradition, some of the premises must be false.

Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above).

===Conflation===
[[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges."

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.)

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. A political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

== Related examples of improper reasoning ==
The following categories of poor reasoning are difficult to classify; some might not wish to classify them as logical fallacies ''per se'', but they are still, in most cases, indefensible:

===Infinite regression===
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''
An [[infinite regression]] results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

Is infinite regression ever defensible? If so, when? A [[Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|debate]] on this issue is now underway.

== Logical fallacy and the educational establishment ==
Today, logic is offered as an elective in [[college]], not as a requirement. Various graduate-school admissions councils (among them the [http://www.mba.com/ Graduate Management Admissions Council] and the [http://www.lsac.org/ Law School Admissions Council]) have long recognized this fact and today test specifically for an appplicant's ability to [[Critical thinking|think critically]] and apply logic.

Thus the major admissions tests (Graduate Management Admission Test and Law School Admissions Test) feature questions on logical reasoning. A typical question would present an argument and ask either:

# What the argument assumes,
# What sort of evidence, if established, would significantly strengthen (or weaken) the argument, or
# Why the argument, as presented, is flawed.

Still other questions present arguments and then ask the test-taker what reasonable conclusions one might draw from them. Occasionally they present sets of two facts that might seem to contradict one another and ask the test-taker to explain how both facts can be true at once.

Many of the arguments presented (the ''stimuli'') and the wrong answer choices offered illustrate classic logical fallacies, often strikingly. Examples of ''argumentum ad hominem'' and the closely related fallacy of ''non sequitur'', to name two key errors, abound in these questions.

Yet for all this effort in trying to identify weaknesses in critical thinking, colleges tend to discourage critical thinking in other ways, mainly in that [[professor]]s often commit the very sort of logical fallacies that these tests, for example, challenge their test-takers with.

== Related References ==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]

== See Also ==

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

User talk:Reagan youth

2007-03-25T03:55:21Z

Reagan youth:

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-25T03:41:01Z

Reagan youth:

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Archaeopteryx

2007-03-16T19:47:02Z

Reagan youth:

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|right|Archaeopteryx fossil]]

'''Archaeopteryx''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]], making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of Archaeopteryx were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a publication doubting evolution explained that the Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html

Talk:Fox News

2007-03-16T19:43:03Z

Reagan youth:

I took out the sexual reference to Bush. This is a family site. If you are going to vandalize, at least restrain your language. --[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The discussion about Hannity and Colmes doesn't belong in this article. If you feel compelled to write about this, go to their article and write it in the discussion page.--[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how the attack on Israel contributes to this article. I erased it. --[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I modified the last sentence. Typical liberal bias.--[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Is a citation ''from'' Fox News saying that Fox News is fair and balanced really a good idea?
I would think that it would be more appropriately said as "Fox News claims to be fair and balanced," or something along those lines.
Anyone disagree?

Yes - Fox News is obviously sympathetic to conservative views, as is all of Rupert Murdoch's empire. To suggest otherwise is absurd and makes a mockery of this whole project. How can a news network be "unbiased" yet not attack Bush as a matter of policy? It doesn't make sense. Of course they have some "liberal" views expressed, but this is not the same as "fair and balanced reporting". It is what it is, and it is very successful, but let's be honest about what it is - isn't honesty supposed to be a virtue?

--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 15:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)
*I disagree. One of the ways Fox News attempts to be fair and balanced is by inviting guests from both sides of the issue. Personally I would prefer to only hear from conservatives, but Fox News has both sides. Hannity and Colmes is a great example of a Fair and Balanced show - Sean is the Conservative and Alan is the liberal (and proud of it). [[User:Crocoite|Dean]] 17:28, 7 March 2007 (EST)
**What other programs do they air that feature both sides of the political spectrum? Regardless, Colmes is quite overshadowed by the rapacious Hannity. -[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:41, 8 March 2007 (EST)

----

I think this entire article could use an overhaul. Although I am a supporter of Fox News, the bias in this article in very apparent. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)
*I disagree. If there's any bias in this article, it's toward conservatism and the Truth, which was the whole purpose of Conservapedia in the first place! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 16:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:*Well it does have a very obvious bias. You are right in saying that Conservapedia has a point of view to impose. But the srticle goes beyond the point of view of Conservapedia.
:Take this example from the article: "Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide."
:#Even though I may think it is a fact that Fox News is the best, it is merely my opinion.
:#This sentence and others are worded as if they were written by a 1st grader - read after comma to see what I mean.
:The point is the article must be written over again to present a factual, encyclopedia-worthy article. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)
**If one news source tells you what to think (as any of the leftist mainstream media stations do) and another just reports the facts in a fair and unbiased manner, then clearly the second news source is superior, by definition! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)
***Every source has a bias. Fox News is no exception.

True. Didn't even notice the "Sean Hannity is a great American" statement at first, which I think is safe to say is an opinion. Also, the reference points to an outdated car giveaway. Doesn't seem like it belongs.
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 15:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think the link for the first reference needs to be changed. It is used as a citation for Fox News saying it is Fair and Balanced, but the link only goes to a page with employment opportunities.

::Even as a pretty conservative person, I will admit Fox News has a definite conservative bias. I'm not faulting them for this, but the media inherently has a bias. That's why having so many different news sources is such a good thing. Nevertheless, it's not just "liberals" that think Fox News is biased. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fair and Balanced? ==

Let's look at the conservative personalities on Fox

-Bill Oreilly 
-Neil Cavuto 
-John Gibson 
-Sean Hannity 
-Brit Hume 
-Everyone on Fox & Friends

Liberal personalities 
-Allen Colmes (and he doesn't even get his own show) 
-Greta Van Susteren (her show is never deals with politics so it doesn't really matter)
*Greta's liberal? Hmmm. Never really watched that, anyways. -[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Let's complain about the show "Red Eye" on Fox News ==

Let's complain about the show "Red Eye" on Fox News. I am a conservative and I would have to say that it is the stupidest show on Fox News. Fox News if you are listening pull the show off your network. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== Is this why Murdoch started Fox? ==

"Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a news channel which would counteract them."

Has anyone got a source that says this ''is'' the reason he started Fox News? What does Murdoch himself say?

==Cable?==
Isn't Fox a broadcast channel? Doesn't it compete with the other broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) rather than with the cable news channels (e.g. CNN)? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Fox News is the cable news channel. Fox is the broadcast channel, and it doesn't carry a news program of its own. So, Fox as a corporation competes in both areas. The only other network that splits itself like this is NBC (MSNBC, CNBC), although they have an integral news program on their broadcast channel.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== "The religion they represent" ==

That line is bat-**-crazy. You cannot say that suicide bombings need to be "put in the context of the religion they represent." It's flat-out racist. Further, it's an obvious bias, just like this entire page.

I have edited out the offensive line. I have also changed some of the wording to sound less biased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Good quick removal of my changes, which were awesome, Tim, since they put the article more in line with your *stated goal* of maintaining a non-biased site.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The fact is that few Christians or Buddhists are blowing themselves up, and Fox News isn't afraid to say that. I find that to be quite an appropriate statement. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 15:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

So, then it would be fine to say that Jim Jones represents Christianity?
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 19:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: The fact is, ATB-uglybar-ATB, that few Muslims are blowing themselves up either. Just the crazy ones. Would it be fair to say that abortion clinic bombers are representative of Christians? See, that might make me mad, since I'm Christian, and I believe that blowing anyone up is a bad thing to do. Take your racist hate-mongering elsewhere.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 19:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I have nothing personal against Muslims except that they should convert to Christianity. However, I think it is a fair to say that Fox News is much harder on them then the other news channels (i.e., they're willing to connect their suicidal nature to their fundamentalism.) I think we can all agree that in America (with proper border controls) we have no room for racism. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 20:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Dominating the ratings" ==

So, uh, if they're dominating the ratings, PROVIDE A SOURCE. Either, you know, give us a source, or leave it out. Or has somebody not looked at the commandments? --[[User:Mattybee|Mattybee]] 14:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fox and CNN ==

I have been doing research on both Fox and CNN, and I have seen many occasions where both networks would be "reporting" the same event and yet both reports are completely different. After watching hours of both networks, and analyzing word usage, stories covered, and opinion pieces, I have come to the conclusion IMHO that both networks are hard at work spoon feeding America news that has been interpreted, digested, and analyzed for us. Both networks are telling us what to think about everything, the only difference is which way their messages lean. It would be nice for the news people to just give me the news without all the crap attached and let us make up our own minds. I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but I am still capable of making my own decisions about what I see.
-Gasmonkey

== Another article protected to preserve its bias ==

Conservapedia continues to abdicate its goal of providing an unbiased encyclopedic source. See [[Theory of evolution]], [[Dinosaur]], and [[Young earth creationism]] for more fun.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow. Well-cited information, called vandalism, was removed. Seriously, guys, come on.

"However, some liberals claim that Hannity and Colmes is still biased toward the right. Sean Hannity joined Fox News when the network started and personally nominated Alan Colmes as his debate opponent. Colmes, a liberal-moderate entirely off the screen of liberal politics, does not receive the same treatment that Hannity receives from the station (Hannity is often brought on during the daily news, while Colmes is not). In fact, the working title was "Hannity and Liberal to be Determined".<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067</ref> Liberals tend to cite Hannity's "superiority" over Colmes in the show as proof of bias."

Why was this removed? It was cited, clearly stated as a liberal belief, but considered vandalism and removed. Do you seriously think that information like this doesn't belong on a Conservative encyclopedia? Conservatives don't deserve to even hear the liberals' arguments? I strongly suggest an unblock, this is hardly vandalism, it's censorship. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 16:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Content and name change ==

Shouldn't the article be called Fox News Channel, shouldn't there be some reference to News Corp and to Roger Ailes? These are all things I'd be willing to do, would have no bias, and would add to the article. Is there no middle ground for protection? In wikipedia there is a semi-protected status which blocks IP users and new users that have been on the site for less than four days. Most vandals will forget about their plan in that time. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Outfoxed: Rupert Mudoch's War on Journalism ==
I watched the documentary in a politics course; it includes many liberal objections to Fox News...I think it deserves some mention. [[User:Reagan youth|Reagan youth]] 15:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Archaeopteryx

2007-03-16T19:23:50Z

Reagan youth:

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|right|Archaeopteryx fossil]]

'''Archaeopteryx''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]], making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of Archaeopteryx were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a publication doubting evolution explained that the Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html

NAFTA

2007-03-16T19:14:57Z

Reagan youth:

NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Agreement, is a controversial trade pact signed by the U.S., Mexico and Canada in 1992. This pact came into effect in 1994, making it the world's biggest free-trade area. It required the elimination of every trade barrier between the signers for fifteen years. It also included agreements on the environment and labor. This gave Canadian and U.S. companies access to Mexican markets.

The pact was originally negotiated by President George Bush but was made into law by President Bill Clinton, despite opposition from his own party.

The acronym can also stand for New Aberdonian Final Trophy Award, a prize presented to the resident of Aberdeen deemed the greatest haggis killer for that calendar year. Past winners include Annie Lennox, Adam Smith, Jose Mourhino and Tam "Seven Fingers" McSporran.

{{stub}}