https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=SaWi 2026-10-31T03:17:15Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Metroid&diff=948425 2011-12-26T17:05:00Z

<p>SaWi: added to list</p> <hr /> <div>'''Metroid''' is a series of [[video game|games]] made by [[Nintendo]]. The [[protagonist|main character]] is Samus Aran. As a [[child]] she was orphaned by the space pirate Ridley and raised by a tribe of bird-like creatures called the Chozo. She was infused with their blood and received their warrior training, and when she came of age, received her Power Suit. While earlier games in the series dealt with story-lines focusing on the eponymous creatures called metroids, later games would focus on a corrupting substance called Phazon. The developer of the later games, Austin Texas' Retro Studios, have described Phazon in terms of corruption. The series has also been adapted into a [[manga]].<br /> <br /> The series was created by [[Gunpei Yokoi]], famous for creating the [[Game and Watch]].<br /> <br /> ==Titles in the Series==<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid (Video game)|Metroid]] (1986) (NES)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid II: Return of Samus]] (1990) (Gameboy)<br /> <br /> *[[Super Metroid]] (1994) (Super Nintendo)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid Prime]] (2003) (Nintendo Gamecube)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid Fusion]] (2003) (Gameboy Advance)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid Zero Mission]] (2004) (Gameboy Advance)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid Prime 2: Echoes]] (2005) (Nintendo Gamecube)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid Prime Hunters]] (2006) (Nintendo DS)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid Prime 3: Corruption]] (2007) (Wii)<br /> <br /> *[[Metroid: Other M]] (2010) (Wii)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Nintendo Franchises]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Free_market&diff=859507 2011-03-28T14:45:25Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>Good addition in the intro, however let's look at this:<br /> *'' They act ostensibly to protect the national interest, but often baser motives are at play, particularly the desire to curry favour with their electorates. ''<br /> The Duelfer Report, for example says,<br /> *''Iraq’s economic decline forced the Regime to accept the UN [Oil For Food] (OFF) program; this resulted in economic recovery and underpinned a more confident Regime posture. [https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html]<br /> and <br /> *''[Oil For Food] rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. <br /> <br /> So....in a dictatorship, while it's arguable the lone dictator making decisions to pursue WMD may or may not serve the national interest, and it certainly is a baser motive at play, it is questionable to say this it is intended to curry favor with the electorate. While that may be true in democracies, we can't make a wholesale statment like this, or need to clarify what is being said. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Idealized construct==<br /> <br /> Marshall, if you think the free market is only an idealized construct, please provide evidence of this. <br /> <br /> On the other hand, if you don't ''know'' this to be true, but are only repeating the opinion of an economist (or maybe some political critic of [[Capitalism]]), be sure to credit the person whose views you are summarizing. A direct quote is even better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Not wishing to impede upon this, however, strictly speaking, the free market is merely an idealized construct. If we are to take the definition of a free maket as being an economy in which there is &quot;no interference on the part of government&quot;, and in which the interaction of supply and demand leads to the market clearing (i.e. is at equilibrium and is allocatively efficient) - this is, in practice, virtually impossible. If we are to assume that all firms are profit maximizers, then the only market structure in which it is possible to maximize profits (producing where Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost), while at the same time achieving an allocatively efficient outcome (where S=D), is within a perfectly competitive market. However, in reality, a number of the conditions required for perfect competition are impossible to achieve - for instance, perfect and complete information. Similarly, rarely, if ever, do firms sell homogenous products (another criterion required for perfect competition). Indeed, in reality, the only markets that can be said to bear any resemblance to perfect competition, and even in these conditions, perfect information is not achieved. Even if you are to take a lesser definition, and merely require there to be a state of competition between firms, and no government interference, then this too is fraught with problems, most notably that outside of perfect competition there exists a tendency for markets to drift toward monopoly, if government fails to intervene.<br /> <br /> If, however, you are simply going to define a free market economy as being a one in which there exists no form of government interference, then, this is theoretically possible, however, whenever countries have attempted to bring about these conditions, the outcome has often been to the detriment of the country involved, many would cite Somalia as an example.<br /> <br /> If you'd like some criticisms of the free market system, from a socialist perspective, Noam Chomsky's writings on the issue are quite interesting, drawing largely on the work of Adam Smith. However, if you'd prefer the capitalist critique, then I'd recommend you check out Joseph Stiglitz and Martin J. Whitman.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Adorno|Adorno]] 10:22, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You seem to be talking past me. Are you confusing &quot;no interference&quot; with &quot;little interference&quot;? <br /> <br /> :Or are you ''making the point'' that free markets don't exist in practice, any more than &quot;[[communism]]&quot; (in the sense of the ideal [[stateless society]] Marx envisioned) exists? If so, please be clear. <br /> <br /> :If you are just making points and don't care to add to the article, please continue this thread at [[Debate:Is free market economics possible in actual practice?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Government exists to protect the market; in a state of chaos or anarchy, the biggest thief with the biggest guns who leads the lawless mob will trample honest businessmen and traders. Yes, so to a certain extent, the market is an idealized construct, but it is in conjunction with human beings voluntarily living under a civil government. When the government gets in the business of robbing honest businessmen and traders to, as the author states, &quot;curry favour with their electorates&quot; or feed the rapacious demands of selfish dictators, this is where problems develop. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Stuff==<br /> Removing the sentence about Canada: because the British system has already been described, because patients fleeing Canadian healthcare system isn't the focus of the article and because it wasn't cited (see [[Conservapedia:Commandments]])<br /> If anyone would provide a reliable source for the claim, and explain what it has to do with the article, I promise I won't argue about it :)<br /> (+ added that Milton Freeman was an economist to give readers unfamiliar with him (like myself) an idea of why he's quoted) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 10:45, 28 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Free_market&diff=859506 2011-03-28T14:45:15Z

<p>SaWi: no more canada, see TP</p> <hr /> <div>A '''free market''' is a term in [[economics]] that refers to an economy operating with little to no interference on the part of a government. This type of economic philosophy is the backbone to the system of [[capitalism]], and is sometimes referred to by the [[French]] phrase &quot;laissez-faire,&quot; meaning to &quot;let be.&quot; Free markets are largely dependent on the process of [[supply and demand]], where prices are determined by the amount of the product in the market, as well as the number of consumers who wish to purchase that product. The market will punish business whose practices are not beneficial, as consumers will take their business elsewhere. [[Communism]] and [[socialism]] are the antithesis of the '''free market'''.<br /> <br /> The opposite of a free market is a [[command system]], in which the government regulates all businesses for the theoretical central planning of the economy, although this has been shown to have negative effects. Economist [[Friedrich Hayek]] warned however of mixing a [[planned economy]] with a competitive economy, &quot;a mixture of the two means that neither will work.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Friedrich A. Hayek, [http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 38.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> A ''[[mixed economy]]'' contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and command economy. For example, the UK is said to have a free market economy in almost all goods and services but retains a bureaucratic socialised healthcare regime. This is justified on the grounds that it will ensure that British subjects have access to health care which is supported out of state coffers.<br /> <br /> Libertarian economist [[Milton Friedman]] said,<br /> <br /> :The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. [http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/miltonfrie173375.html]<br /> == See also ==<br /> *[[Austrian economics]]<br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:economics]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scholar&diff=859498 2011-03-28T13:50:55Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''scholar''' is a term usually used to describe a person who has performed advance studies in a particular field or a holder of a scholarship, but can be applied to anyone who attends some form of school or studies with an instructor (like a [[Homeschooling|homeschooled]] student).&lt;ref name=&quot;scholar&quot;&gt;[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar scholar from Merriam-Webster]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references&gt;</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Foucault%27s_Pendulum&diff=859496 2011-03-28T13:36:10Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Foucault's pendulum''' is a weight, usually a sphere, suspended by a wire that is attached at the ceiling with a joint that allows the weight to swing in any direction.<br /> <br /> The motion of this pendulum proves that the earth is rotating underneath the pendulum. The angle of the rotation of the pendulum per hour remains fixed at any location and equals:<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;15\sin( q )&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> where q is the latitude of the observer. At the equator, the plane in which the pendulum moves does not change.<br /> <br /> The physicist Jean Bernard Léon Foucault demonstrated this in the church [[Pantheon, Paris|Le Pantheon]] in [[Paris]] in 1851.<br /> <br /> ==Other uses==<br /> <br /> ''Foucault's Pendulum'' is also the English name for an Italian novel by [[Umberto Eco]].<br /> <br /> [[Category:Physics]]<br /> [[Category:Novels]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:SaWi&diff=857360 2011-03-17T11:03:35Z

<p>SaWi: Created page with &quot;Hi&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Hi</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Woodpecker&diff=857359 2011-03-17T11:01:51Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>Almost this entire article was copied, originally word-for-word, from http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/woodpeckers.php. Copying another person's words, without their permission, without attribution, is deceitful. It is unfortunate that removing the plagiarism reduces the article's length; it will have to be built up again with honest research. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:34, 20 May 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> What in this[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics] has anything to do with the evolution of the woodpeckers skull? I know it touches on irreducible complexity, but on it's own I don't have anything to do with the subject (woodpeckers). On the other hand, I can't find any sources regarding the evolution of the woodpeckers skull, so the fact the [[Evolutionists]] are silent on the matter might be true.<br /> I'm leaving the link in for now though, since someone might have a good reason for putting it there.<br /> <br /> Oh, and I'm removing the &quot;silencing the opposition&quot; part. Might be true, but has nothing to do with woodpeckers :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 07:01, 17 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Woodpecker&diff=857358 2011-03-17T11:01:35Z

<p>SaWi: just a few small changes</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Woodpecker.jpg|right|250px|thumb|An acorn woodpecker.]]<br /> A '''woodpecker''' is a [[bird]] that pounds its [[beak]] into a [[tree]]'s surface to find [[food]].&lt;ref&gt;http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/woodpeckers.php&lt;/ref&gt; There are 21 species of woodpeckers in the United States. &lt;ref&gt;Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management, ''WOODPECKERS'', by Rex E. Marsh, 2005 [http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/woodpeckers.asp]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Evidence against [[Evolution]] ==<br /> The skull of the woodpecker is uniquely suited to absorb the intense shocks generated by its feeding habits. If the skull was weaker at some point in the past, the bird would not have been able to feed in such a manner. But if the bird didn't feed in such a manner, then what would have been the reason for it to evolve a thicker skull?&lt;ref&gt;http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics&lt;/ref&gt; [[Evolutionists]] have not been able to produce an answer to this question.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> == External Links ==<br /> http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/woodpeckers.html<br /> <br /> [[Category:Birds]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SaWi&diff=857352 2011-03-17T09:25:13Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:36, 12 January 2011 (EST)}}<br /> Hello. I noticed you've been starting a lot of discussions on talk pages, which is good. However, perhaps there are some pages you would like to work with where you can make more substantive edits. Just a suggestion. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:11, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I sorted thought the same thing but didn't want to say anything. I just noticed a lot of the edits were &quot;is there a reference for such and such&quot; which I'd then add but would have been easier if SaWi added it him/herself. Not to be rude, as I said I am new also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:45, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::To be honest I'm more into adding and/or changing small stuff. And I don't want to get accused of liberal censorship if I remove uncited material. And it's not my problem if someone don't include a source for their statements. If it isn't backed up by facts, then it shouldn't been added in the first place [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 05:25, 17 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fox_Television_and_Religion&diff=857224 2011-03-16T22:31:30Z

<p>SaWi: is this line important enough for its own page?</p> <hr /> <div>'''Fox Television''' imposes a policy of censoring religious advertisements from its broadcast of the [[Super Bowl]], the most-watched program of the year.<br /> <br /> {{merge with|Fox News Channel}}</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Hour&diff=857223 2011-03-16T22:24:39Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>==Al Gore==<br /> Is it relevant to the article?<br /> I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promoting earth hour? If he has, then it's definitely hypocrisy ([[liberal hypocrisy]]?) and should be properly cited. Otherwise I'm unsure if his choice to leave the light on has anything to do with the article.<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Well, I'd say it's relevant as Gore is a huge promoter of many other &quot;green&quot; initiatives but for some reason he can &quot;pick and choose&quot; when he wants to support the environment and when he doesn't. To me that sounds pretty self-centered. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:23, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Earth Hour is a symbolic act. Maybe he think that he's done enough ;)<br /> ::No, but seriously, that's like asking a Sunni Muslim why he's not agreeing with the Shia Imams (I admit that's dragging it a bit to the extreme, but I hope you get my point). Do you have any more recent sources that say that he didn't participate btw? (any news about last year for example?) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:37, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::A search of &quot;Al Gore Earth Hour&quot; brings up a multitude of references. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Most of them (didn't look beyond top 10-20 though) seem to have to do with him skipping it 2009 [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:57, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I have added the qualifier &quot;in 2009&quot;. He would have felt very pressured by environmental groups after this incident so I doubt he would have repeated it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]]<br /> ::::::Okay :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 18:24, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Reality bit==<br /> Got some problems with this one. Not that what it says isn't true, but I think we could just provide a link to [[global warming]] or something, since this part don't have anything directly to do with the (symbolic) act of turning of the light for an hour at 8.30 in the evening (and I don't think that anyone in the Earth Hour-organisation deny that light-bulbs are important. Got no sources for that though :p) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:45, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Drug_education&diff=857222 2011-03-16T22:15:34Z

<p>SaWi: added years to statistics</p> <hr /> <div>'''Drug education''' has been the misguided effort in [[public schools]] to deter students from drug use by teaching students about drugs. As a result, [[illegal drug]] use by students in 8th through 12th grades has skyrocketed from 62% in 1991 to a shocking 77% in 2007.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002&lt;/ref&gt; The failure of drug education in schools is analogous to the failure of [[sex education]].<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> <br /> The [[No Child Left Behind]] Act of 2001 requires schools to impose drug education, or else lose their [[federal funding]]. <br /> <br /> This mandate began with the Drug-Free <br /> Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989.&lt;ref&gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.3614.ENR:&lt;/ref&gt; It expanded with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, which was folded into the 6th reauthorization of ESEA.&lt;ref&gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.6:&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In 2001 Congress passed No Child Left Behind -- the 7th reauthorization of ESEA. Once again, a revised Drug-Free Schools provision was included within the larger bill.&lt;ref&gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1:&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ESEA/NCLB was supposed to be reauthorized in 2006, but Republicans were unable to produce a final bill that year. After [[Democrat]]s took over Congress, they chose not to negotiate with Bush over education. Instead they simply waited for a Democrat president.<br /> <br /> == New Jersey ==<br /> <br /> In December 2008, an official report shows about 30% of [[public schools]] failing the No Child Left Behind academic standards, and over 400 schools repeatedly so.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nj.gov/education/news/2008/1219ayp.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2000/july00/psrjuly2000.html Eagle Forum analysis]<br /> *[http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/drug_ed/index.shtml Eagle Forum analysis]<br /> [[Category:education]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Drug_education&diff=857221 2011-03-16T22:15:32Z

<p>SaWi: Created page with &quot;Should there be a section about the conservative view on what drug education should be? Maybe a comment on why it went wrong? ~~~~&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Should there be a section about the conservative view on what drug education should be? Maybe a comment on why it went wrong? [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 18:15, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Hour&diff=857214 2011-03-16T21:57:24Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>==Al Gore==<br /> Is it relevant to the article?<br /> I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promoting earth hour? If he has, then it's definitely hypocrisy ([[liberal hypocrisy]]?) and should be properly cited. Otherwise I'm unsure if his choice to leave the light on has anything to do with the article.<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Well, I'd say it's relevant as Gore is a huge promoter of many other &quot;green&quot; initiatives but for some reason he can &quot;pick and choose&quot; when he wants to support the environment and when he doesn't. To me that sounds pretty self-centered. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:23, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Earth Hour is a symbolic act. Maybe he think that he's done enough ;)<br /> ::No, but seriously, that's like asking a Sunni Muslim why he's not agreeing with the Shia Imams (I admit that's dragging it a bit to the extreme, but I hope you get my point). Do you have any more recent sources that say that he didn't participate btw? (any news about last year for example?) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:37, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::A search of &quot;Al Gore Earth Hour&quot; brings up a multitude of references. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Most of them (didn't look beyond top 10-20 though) seem to have to do with him skipping it 2009 [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:57, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Reality bit==<br /> Got some problems with this one. Not that what it says isn't true, but I think we could just provide a link to [[global warming]] or something, since this part don't have anything directly to do with the (symbolic) act of turning of the light for an hour at 8.30 in the evening (and I don't think that anyone in the Earth Hour-organisation deny that light-bulbs are important. Got no sources for that though :p) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:45, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Hour&diff=857212 2011-03-16T21:45:39Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>==Al Gore==<br /> Is it relevant to the article?<br /> I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promoting earth hour? If he has, then it's definitely hypocrisy ([[liberal hypocrisy]]?) and should be properly cited. Otherwise I'm unsure if his choice to leave the light on has anything to do with the article.<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Well, I'd say it's relevant as Gore is a huge promoter of many other &quot;green&quot; initiatives but for some reason he can &quot;pick and choose&quot; when he wants to support the environment and when he doesn't. To me that sounds pretty self-centered. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:23, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Earth Hour is a symbolic act. Maybe he think that he's done enough ;)<br /> ::No, but seriously, that's like asking a Sunni Muslim why he's not agreeing with the Shia Imams (I admit that's dragging it a bit to the extreme, but I hope you get my point). Do you have any more recent sources that say that he didn't participate btw? (any news about last year for example?) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:37, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Reality bit==<br /> Got some problems with this one. Not that what it says isn't true, but I think we could just provide a link to [[global warming]] or something, since this part don't have anything directly to do with the (symbolic) act of turning of the light for an hour at 8.30 in the evening (and I don't think that anyone in the Earth Hour-organisation deny that light-bulbs are important. Got no sources for that though :p) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:45, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Hour&diff=857211 2011-03-16T21:37:16Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>==Al Gore==<br /> Is it relevant to the article?<br /> I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promoting earth hour? If he has, then it's definitely hypocrisy ([[liberal hypocrisy]]?) and should be properly cited. Otherwise I'm unsure if his choice to leave the light on has anything to do with the article.<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Well, I'd say it's relevant as Gore is a huge promoter of many other &quot;green&quot; initiatives but for some reason he can &quot;pick and choose&quot; when he wants to support the environment and when he doesn't. To me that sounds pretty self-centered. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:23, 16 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Earth Hour is a symbolic act. Maybe he think that he's done enough ;)<br /> ::No, but seriously, that's like asking a Sunni Muslim why he's not agreeing with the Shia Imams (I admit that's dragging it a bit to the extreme, but I hope you get my point). Do you have any more recent sources that say that he didn't participate btw? (any news about last year for example?) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:37, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Hour&diff=857205 2011-03-16T21:18:18Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>==Al Gore==<br /> Is it relevant to the article?<br /> I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promoting earth hour? If he has, then it's definitely hypocrisy ([[liberal hypocrisy]]?) and should be properly cited. Otherwise I'm unsure if his choice to leave the light on has anything to do with the article.<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Earth_Hour&diff=857204 2011-03-16T21:18:08Z

<p>SaWi: Created page with &quot;==Al Gore== Is it relevant to the article? I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promo...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Al Gore==<br /> Is it relevant to the article?<br /> I know he's one of the biggest promoters of &quot;man-made global warming&quot; (or whatever you want to call it), but has he actively been promoting earth hour? If he has, then it's definitely hypocrisy ([[liberal hypocrisy]]?) and should be properly cited. Otherwise I'm unsure if his choice to leave the light on has anything to do with the article.<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 17:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Palladium&diff=857199 2011-03-16T21:00:46Z

<p>SaWi: just added some minor stuff</p> <hr /> <div>'''Palladium''' is a chemical [[element]] with the chemical symbol '''Pd''' and the [[atomic number]] 46. It is a rare [[transition metal]] that was discovered in 1803. Some of its many practical uses include [[catalyst]]s, [[electronics]], use in blood sugar test strips &lt;ref&gt;http://www.periodictable.com/Elements/046/pictures.html&lt;/ref&gt;, [[coin]]s, and [[photography]]. It is most often mined in the [[Ural Mountains]], [[South Africa]], and [[Ontario]].<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Periodic table of the elements]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;References/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Elements]]<br /> [[Category:Metals]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:DeviantART&diff=857081 2011-03-15T22:53:21Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>Maybe throw in a little warning that there is inappropriate content for children there?<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 18:20, 15 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Good idea, I have done just that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:44, 15 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> : : ) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 18:53, 15 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_in_Conservapedia&diff=857080 2011-03-15T22:52:12Z

<p>SaWi: Created page with &quot;Maybe we should try to divide these up into categories? I mean like Scripture, Events, People, Objects, Art etc. to create some structure? ~~~~&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Maybe we should try to divide these up into categories? I mean like Scripture, Events, People, Objects, Art etc. to create some structure? [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 18:52, 15 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:DeviantART&diff=857076 2011-03-15T22:20:45Z

<p>SaWi: Created page with &quot;Maybe throw in a little warning that there is inappropriate content for children there? ~~~~&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Maybe throw in a little warning that there is inappropriate content for children there?<br /> [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 18:20, 15 March 2011 (EDT)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon&diff=856906 2011-03-14T20:23:34Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>[[image:Pokemon.jpg|right|200px]]<br /> '''Pokémon''' is a highly successful Japanese franchise that was introduced in the 1990s. Owned by [[Nintendo]], it has risen to become the second most successful video game franchise, behind Nintendo's own Mario. It spread to several other countries in a short time.<br /> <br /> The series focuses on capturing, training, battling, collecting and trading various monster species, known as Pokémon. While the mechanics vary from incarnation to incarnation, the player generally takes on the role of a Pokémon trainer, seeking to capture wild monsters, raise them, and defeat other trainers in duels using the captured monsters in order to become a champion.<br /> <br /> ==Video Games==<br /> <br /> Pokémon was originally released in [[Japan]] in 1996 as a pair of cartridges, ''Pokémon Red'' and ''Pokémon Green'', for the original [[Game Boy]] system. Three years later, the games were released as ''Pokémon Red'' and ''Pokémon Blue'' in the United States and worldwide. The games feature similar gameplay, differing primarily in what monsters are available in each version. New versions of the game are released periodically, normally in pairs, to introduce new monsters and to take advantage of improving hardware technology. As of the release of ''Pokémon Black'' and ''Pokémon White'' in 2011 (2010 in Japan), there are 649 species of Pokémon available.<br /> <br /> Players take the role of a Pokémon trainer, seeking to capture wild Pokémon with &quot;Pokéballs&quot;, small spheres in which captured creatures live. The player travels across the region challenging other trainers while raising their own Pokémon and capturing new ones. The games normally feature a sub-plot where the player, with the help of their Pokémon, foil the schemes of a criminal organization. The player must challenge eight advanced trainers known as &quot;gym leaders&quot; before they can challenge the &quot;Elite Four&quot; and the &quot;League Champion&quot;, five of the strongest trainers in the region. The games also challenge the player to see and capture as many species as possible. However, this is made difficult due to different game versions having exclusive Pokémon, requiring the player to trade with other people who have the opposite game version. Also, certain Pokémon deemed &quot;legendary&quot; can only be obtained by attending [[Nintendo]] hosted events.<br /> <br /> In a battle with a wild Pokémon or a match against a trainer, the player's Pokémon and the foe alternate using learned attack and support techniques, attempting to knock out their opponent. If the player encounters a wild Pokémon, they can elect to attempt to capture it, rather than knocking it out. A captured Pokémon joins the player, who may then raise it or trade it away.<br /> <br /> Many Pokémon, with sufficient training, will spontaneously change form, developing into a larger, stronger form of their species. This process is called &quot;evolution&quot;, though it more closely resembles maturation. Some Pokémon species can evolve multiple times, and some species can only be obtained by evolving more basic species. Players may also breed their Pokémon with each other by leaving them with the Day Care man, who will inform the player when the Pokémon lay an egg. Eggs eventually hatch into Pokémon, giving the player another option for acquiring new Pokémon.<br /> <br /> Additionally, other video games featuring the Pokémon characters have been released, including ''Pokémon Pinball'' and the ''Pokémon Ranger'' series.&lt;ref name=&quot;offwev&quot;&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.pokemon.com/#videogames_1|title=Pokemon.com|work=The Official Pokémon Website|format=HTML|language=English}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Other Media==<br /> <br /> The Pokémon video game franchise has been adapted into various other media. In 1997, it was adapted into a cartoon show for children which follows the adventures of Ash Ketchum and his friends, as well as their Pokémon. The program is notable for an episode aired only in Japan in which flashing lights caused by one monster's attack induced seizures in hundreds of viewers. Several films based on the series have been produced and released worldwide.&lt;ref&gt;Pokemon.com, The Official Pokémon Website [http://www.pokemon.com/#tvmovies]&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt; [http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/world/tv-cartoon-s-flashes-send-700-japanese-into-seizures.html?sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=2 The New York Times; TV Cartoon's Flashes Send 700 Japanese Into Seizures]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The franchise also spawned a collectible &quot;trading card game&quot;, where players duel using special decks consisting of cards representing different Pokémon species, as well as energy cards, which allow Pokémon to use their battle techniques, and trainer cards, which have special effects that influence the flow of battle. The game uses mechanics adapted from the video game, and features characters from the video game and from the cartoon.&lt;ref name=&quot;cardgame&quot;&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.go-pokemon.com/|title=Go-Pokemon.com|work=The Official Pokémon TCG and OP Website|format=HTML|language=English}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Criticism==<br /> Pokémon has been criticized for promoting [[violence]], [[occultism]], and [[satanism]].&lt;ref&gt;http://www.capalert.com/capreports/pokemonthemovie.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> #[http://www.pokemon.com/ Official Website]<br /> #[http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page Bulbapedia, wiki with extensive franchise information]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Games]]<br /> [[Category: Nintendo Franchises]]</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Liberal_Denials_about_History&diff=853048 2011-03-01T21:11:48Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==<br /> <br /> So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.<br /> :::In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == This essay sparks interest, but... ==<br /> <br /> ...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.<br /> <br /> For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that &quot;Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery&quot;, so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).<br /> <br /> The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was &quot;...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?&quot; You seem to assume that every conservative will go &quot;Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!&quot;, but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?<br /> <br /> And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!<br /> <br /> Lastly, the &quot;American Indians vs. Asians&quot; thing... really needs a source. Who says they're &quot;too different&quot;, for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.<br /> <br /> I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of &quot;inside jokes&quot; (not in the &quot;funny&quot; sense, but in the &quot;This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things&quot; sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.<br /> <br /> : Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.<br /> <br /> : Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.<br /> <br /> : American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.<br /> # Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.<br /> #Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.<br /> #Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence. <br /> #As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.<br /> Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)<br /> ::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: &quot;If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame.&quot; So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):<br /> ::#&quot;There's no denying it&quot; is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that &quot;there's no denying it&quot; if they asked you &quot;Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?&quot;? I hope not.<br /> ::#I didn't doubt that &quot;public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old&quot;. My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).<br /> ::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.<br /> ::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with &quot;Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!&quot; Though I admit that the &quot;Their interests are different!&quot; bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. &quot;Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!&quot; :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.<br /> ::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:<br /> ::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating &quot;slavery is wrong&quot; from &quot;state&quot;. The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.<br /> ::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.<br /> ::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.<br /> ::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I am curious about what is meant by &quot;blood types&quot;. After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference: <br /> <br /> ''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.<br /> http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A bulleted list...==<br /> A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|&quot;essays&quot;]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other &quot;essays&quot;).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;s&gt;Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of &quot;essays&quot;, readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of &quot;bad thoughts&quot;.&lt;/s&gt; [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ===NOTE===<br /> The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet &quot;hacked&quot; her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit.&lt;br /&gt;<br /> My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be. <br /> <br /> '''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, &quot;speaking&quot; rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''<br /> <br /> Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the &quot;drivel&quot;, &quot;intellectually lazy&quot; and &quot;shallow&quot; comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Dark Ages ==<br /> <br /> Bullet point 7: &quot;The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'.&quot;<br /> <br /> The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.<br /> <br /> Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).<br /> <br /> Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.<br /> ::2. I don't understand your point about &quot;the current enemy of modern democratic values&quot;. How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Conservative denials about history==<br /> If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Misnamed ==<br /> <br /> I always thought that it was called the &quot;guilded age&quot; because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Status==<br /> ''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : &quot;Status&quot; is not the same as &quot;contributions&quot;. Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on &quot;status&quot; than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Amerindians &amp; Asians ==<br /> <br /> The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Specific Denials ==<br /> 1. First of all, your source is &quot;www.floridareenactorsonline.com.&quot; A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.<br /> 2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.<br /> 3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that &quot;chivalry was customary&quot; tells the student nothing about history.<br /> 4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot. <br /> 5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.<br /> 6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing. <br /> 7. Teaching it as purely &quot;atheist materialism&quot; is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply &quot;atheist materialism.&quot; Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil &quot;Atheism&quot; (and more specifically, &quot;Darwinism&quot;) is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense &quot;well they're not real Christians.&quot; Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.<br /> 9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.<br /> 10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say &quot;The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine.&quot;<br /> --[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Virginia==<br /> In what way does the naming of Virginia come under ''&quot;The following truths about history are '''typically''' denied by liberal history textbooks:&quot;''? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as &quot;liberal&quot; in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it '''typical''' of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Triangular Trade ==<br /> <br /> Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular [[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] instead. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I have an open mind about this. But the &quot;triangle&quot; doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term &quot;triangular trade&quot; was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.<br /> <br /> :Some people like [[deceit]] for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of &quot;triangular trade.&quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it ''liberal'' deceit. <br /> <br /> ::It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. &quot;Triangular trade&quot; is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term &quot;triangular trade&quot; is misleading. Perhaps stating &quot;there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa&quot; is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.<br /> <br /> ::Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term &quot;finished manufactured goods&quot;. Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The point that's being missed here is that ''triangular trade'' implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not &quot;finished manufactured goods&quot;. Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is '''not''' what trade is all about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I would not say that point is being &quot;missed&quot;, when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does ''triangular trade'' imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be &quot;equal&quot; (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were &quot;equal&quot;)? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Liberal rant ==<br /> <br /> This isn't an essay, rather an intellectually shallow, and unsourced bullet list of jingoistic propositions.<br /> <br /> Example: <br /> ''1. That &quot;Yankee ingenuity&quot; (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''<br /> <br /> This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as &quot;Yankee ingenuity&quot; (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many &quot;Yankee inventions&quot; were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).<br /> <br /> <br /> ''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''<br /> <br /> It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the &quot;Protestant Work Ethic&quot;, a Weberian Thesis. <br /> See for example ,for an overview; <br /> <br /> &quot;A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104<br /> <br /> ''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''<br /> <br /> Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.<br /> <br /> 10. That Rhode Island and Thomas Jefferson, and their view of a &quot;separation of church and state,&quot; had no role in the formation of the Constitution.<br /> <br /> False, Citation needed before I'll accept that.<br /> <br /> <br /> ''12. That &quot;anti-imperialism&quot; movements against the United States were really communist or Muslim movements against Christianity, as in denying the Islamic basis for the Philippine insurgency around 1900.''<br /> <br /> False, Ditto #10. Additionally,You need to prove the presence of Muslim movements against Christian's as a theme in colonial conflict,a great argument can be made that Islamic resistance movements are solely a product of decolonization. Finally, you need to prove that these communist or muslim resistance groups are fighting for Marx or Muhammad rather than masking anti-imperial or nationalist urges with a thin cover of ideology.<br /> <br /> ''15. That President FDR did not end the Great Depression, and may have prolonged it.''<br /> <br /> Arguable, citation needed. Argument against see: <br /> <br /> Gauti Eggertsson, Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, American Economic Review, 98:4,2008,pp 1476-1516<br /> <br /> ''17. That President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.<br /> ''<br /> False. Shows a gross misunderstanding of the full view, jingoistic. Author needs to review the literature on Perestroika, and Glasnost, as well as passive resistance within the Soviet Union . Should also review the role of Yeltsin, and the presidents of Ukraine and Belorussia in the immediate period pre-dissolution. Argument should be that Reagan played a crucial role rather than the key role in my opinion.<br /> <br /> ''18. That NO &quot;triangular trade&quot; existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]''<br /> <br /> Irrelevant, straw man argument. Triangle trade is no longer explained as tangible trade routes, rather as a historical construction to understand flows of commerce and explanations for slavery and the first explosion of imperialism in the 17th century. Analogous to the Columbian exchange. Triangle trade not taken absolutely seriously as a tangible fact since '70;s. <br /> <br /> See Gilman Ostrander, The making of the Traignular trade myth, The william and mary quarterly, 3:30:4, 1973, pp 635-644<br /> <br /> == Reply ==<br /> <br /> :REPLY:<br /> <br /> :''1. That &quot;Yankee ingenuity&quot; (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''<br /> <br /> :This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as &quot;Yankee ingenuity&quot; (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many &quot;Yankee inventions&quot; were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).<br /> <br /> ::You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.<br /> <br /> :''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''<br /> <br /> :It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the &quot;Protestant Work Ethic&quot;, a Weberian Thesis. <br /> See for example ,for an overview; <br /> <br /> :&quot;A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104<br /> <br /> ::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.<br /> <br /> :''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''<br /> <br /> :Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.<br /> <br /> ::You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.<br /> <br /> ::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the &quot;liberal art of citation of sources&quot;.<br /> <br /> &quot;::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.&quot; - Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) In fact, if you leave the United States and Europe<br /> <br /> :I'd ask you to cite a source, but since you're banned you can't. I'd have to check the math, but I don't think 1200 calories a day is sufficient to sustain hard labor. Don't U.S. lumberjacks eat over 5,000 calories a day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:07, 27 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::In this user's absence, I'm happy to provide two sources for you: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked this one] and [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/hours-worked-per-year.html this one]. It looks like Australians, Japanese, and Koreans do indeed work a little harder on average (Koreans much harder). <br /> <br /> ::While the Malaysian labor camps may not exactly have been germane to this point, he didn't pull it out of thin air. A google search revealed [http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/24563-human-trafficking-malaysians-extort-thais-ignore this] and [http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:_rwpDZ6oTS8J:www.kanlungan.ngo.ph/Resources/Malaysia_Sic%2520Country.pdf+malaysian+workers+underfed&amp;cd=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk this] detailing labor camp workers being underfed. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 14:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Liberal Response&quot; ==<br /> <br /> You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.<br /> 1] Ad Hominem, but I did it too, so it's acceptable in the context<br /> 2]&quot;Ridiculous fallacy&quot; - it's ridiculous to you, so you brush it off<br /> 3]&quot;correlation doesnt lead to causation&quot; - Because a lot of inventions are from the United States, it doesn't mean that the vast majority are, doesn't mean that they're invented by Americans, doesn't mean it's a specific American trait , to innovate.<br /> <br /> &quot;::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.&quot; -<br /> <br /> Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) By rest of the world you mean Europe, which is true, European workers are lazy socialists, but take a job with a chinese labourer or a korean , even a japanese guy, much harder workers than the average American<br /> <br /> 1] Undeniable fact- can't remember which logical fallacy that is, but it's a major one. All facts are deniable, and in this case easily.<br /> 2] Vast generalisation, needs proof.<br /> <br /> You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.<br /> <br /> 1]Ad hominen<br /> 2]didn't mention homeschooling, mentioned the historical context of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. you're homeschooling program has no correlation with the 19th century &quot;home schooling&quot;. The contexts and curriculum are quite different. You're welcome to disagree, let's see the sources.<br /> <br /> ::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the &quot;liberal art of citation of sources&quot;. I've seen no counter poiunts here except pointless logical fallacies.<br /> <br /> ::You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding.<br /> <br /> ::Re: homeschooling, people and homeschooling were not that different 150 years ago. Moreover, you seem to confuse cause with effect. The point is about the positive effect of homeschooling, regardless of the motivation. I realize that Germany bans homeschooling and England is over-regulating it, but it remains productive at a far greater level than its percentages. And this has always been true, as numerous examples [[homeschooling|here]] illustrate.<br /> <br /> ::If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 16 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> Now that was a better point, which I can concede on. As per the bible, I'm [[Plymouth Brethren]], rejecting the bible isn't in my &quot;Modus Operandi&quot;.--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 22:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Interesting. We seem to have quite an entry on that denomination.<br /> <br /> :I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be many people who read everything ''except'' the most logical book of all, the Bible. Lots of people even claim to be well-read yet complete avoid and even censor this most influential and most widely read book of all. Objectively, such an approach is ... not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Communism ==<br /> <br /> The fact that the McCarthy article was featured on the main page recently got me to thinking: liberals, in general, try to gloss over the fact that there was good reason for people to be concerned about the threat posed by Communism. Public schools will teach the &quot;Red Scares,&quot; for example, but seldom mention the reasons behind the concern--for instance, the 1919 bombing attacks against major American industrialists and government officials.<br /> <br /> Should the fact that liberals deny that Communism was a serious threat be included? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I'm just reading &quot;48 Liberal Lies about American History&quot; now, and I bet I'll be able to add a whole bunch of stuff to this page soon! See the table of contents [http://books.google.com/books?id=A3Muu2TsOioC&amp;dq=48+Liberal+Lies+About+American+History&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QA7LddEssH&amp;sig=lepXhrknDTwEN9HCN8AwB-RcOA8&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=qWAxS4aQBoPAsQP4yoG7BA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=8&amp;ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:16, 22 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == One question ==<br /> <br /> Guys, let's face it. There's (as of... Now) three notes on this page, and only one reference to another source (which I personally find a bit suspect, but that might just be me...)<br /> <br /> Umm... That means there's a lot of unsourced claims where it should be at least 72 sources (one that cite that it is something that liberals deny (or claim) about history, and one to point out why it's wrong)<br /> <br /> Well anyway... Have fun :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 16:11, 1 March 2011 (EST)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Patriotism&diff=840297 2011-01-13T02:08:16Z

<p>SaWi: </p> <hr /> <div>==Explanation of changes==<br /> <br /> Previous text:<br /> :Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest [[United States|American]] virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the [[president|Leader]] of the country. The opposite of patriotism, [[treason]], is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.<br /> <br /> :Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote &quot;Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori&quot;, which means &quot;It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Horace, ''Odes'' (iii 2.13)&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> &quot;highest American virtue&quot;--not sourced. <br /> <br /> &quot;Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the [[president|Leader]] of the country.&quot; No, it doesn't. It means simply love or devotion to one's country. Hardly the same. <br /> <br /> &quot;The opposite of patriotism, treason...&quot; No, they are not opposites. Treason is &quot;Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.&quot; &quot;Failure to be devoted&quot; is not the same as &quot;waging war against it&quot; or &quot;aiding its enemies.&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die&quot;; perhaps, but a more usual rendering is &quot;It is sweet and becoming to die for one's country.&quot; [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :What is the source for this edit,<br /> *''the root is the same as ''pater,'' father, and literally means &quot;fatherland.&quot;'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Should [[nationalism]] be mentioned and/or linked? [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 21:08, 12 January 2011 (EST)</div>

SaWi https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism/archive17&diff=840270 2011-01-13T01:03:18Z

<p>SaWi: /* &quot;Atheism is a clown and did not know it.&quot; */</p> <hr /> <div>Why can't i edit this page? The edit tab isn't there - Ian r.<br /> ::::Consider trying to answer [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|&quot;the question&quot;]] and then going to [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|this resource.]] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Atheism is not a Religion ==<br /> Contrary to what many of you may believe, it is possible to be a functioning, empathetic, moral, well-put-together person yet not have religion. I would like to believe that I am one of those people. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding among many religious people (who I respect dearly as many of my friends are religious) who think that Atheism is a set of beliefs or a rejection of a specific set of beliefs. It is not. By being an atheist I am not rejecting any beliefs. I remain open to the possibility of a higher power and would believe in it--whatever that means, I really don't know since I was raised without religion--if I felt that there was evidence that it existed. In summary, being an atheist is (for me) not a rejection of the Christian God, it is rather a lack of belief in that God. It is the same as your lack of belief in Hindu gods; you do not reject the existence of those-in fact you probably have never even considered the possibility of their existence. But is Shiva the destroyer arrived on Earth, you would probably change your opinion. It is the same for me and the Christian God, as well as any other God or higher being. [[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 01:06, 18 November 2010 (PST)<br /> <br /> ::Which [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] works have you read by Christian authors and why specifically do you reject their assertions? Also, which notable atheist lawyer has been willing to stick his neck out and make a refutation of a major [[Christian legal apologetics|Christian legal apologetic]] work via a scholarly book of his own? If you do not answer both of these questions in a meritorious manner, we will assume you cannot defend your [[atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] and that you can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:18, 19 November 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::What do you call people who don't follow a religion? If not an atheist then what? I am one of those people, not what you define to be an atheist. As for works by &quot;apologetic&quot; Christian authors, I must confess that I don't even know what that term means in this context. As I said above, I do not reject or refute (or as Sarah Palin once said, refudiate) the assertions of Christian theists, I simply do not hold those assertions in my personal set of beliefs. As for the confusion over the literary definition of the term &quot;atheism&quot;, &quot;theism&quot; is a belief in a higher being and the prefix &quot;a&quot; is normally used with the meaning &quot;not, without&quot;, therefore &quot;atheism&quot; is a lack of belief in a higher being. It is not a direct repudiation of a specific system of beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinions and am a conservative myself, I just don't want to my personal beliefs to be misunderstood and subsequently maligned.<br /> <br /> :::Also, the &quot;question&quot; is based on an age-old argumentative fallacy. Being unable to prove that something does not exist does not prove that it does exist. [[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 16:59, 19 November 2010 (PST)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Atheism is a clown and did not know it.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> There's a verb-tense disagreement there: should read either &quot;is/does not...&quot; or &quot;was/did not...&quot; [[User:MartinC|MartinC]] 22:27, 18 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> :::I suggest taking that up with [[shockofgod]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:03, 20 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::Um, one question (seemed to me that this was the best place to post it (hey, it's my first day :p)), but why do the Shockofgod talkpage link to http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_A_YouTube_atheist_trying_to_pwn_Christian_shockofgod (slightly confused about how the linking system works, I promise to look into it right after this), which talkpage in turn link to this page. [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 20:03, 12 January 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian ==<br /> <br /> I just made an article on the [[Confessions]] by [[Saint Augustine]] and wondered if it would be a useful resource - there are free online translations available from the original Latin. I think that that book is an excellent account of an intelligent and self-aware man's journey from a life of youthful sin to become a Christian. But I don't know if people will find it outdated or not as a resource, it's not as flashy as a lot of modern evangelical presentations are. I do find some of the more media-friendly modern resources about Christianity a little &quot;shallow&quot; compared to Augustine, so perhaps he's best for deep-thinking folk. Also the way he ruthlessly shows up the arguments of the Neoplatonists, Manichaeans and astrologers might seem less relevant (or just harder to understand for people who don't really know what Manichaeans believed, though at the time they were certainly vying with Christianity to become the main religion in the Mediterranean) but his youthful passions and sin and sense of meaninglessness without the Lord is something that is easier for anyone to grasp, and he certainly pulls no punches! [[User:JReynolds|JReynolds]] 20:29, 20 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::I appreciate the thought, however, I don't recall Augustine being an atheists plus as you said, it is rather dated although theology admittedly is timeless in character if done well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:06, 20 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Really informative article.... I also greatly enjoyed the various comedy articles you have about atheism. Did you notice how that Paul-Henri Thiery guy looks like a clown - like all satire, the idea that &quot;atheism is a clown&quot; has a bit of truth to it! --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 23:19, 23 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==What atheists don't believe in==<br /> <br /> Speaking without prejudice to the issue, and with a deep sense of empathy toward my atheist brethren ...<br /> <br /> I daresay that the &quot;God&quot; in Whom atheists do not believe is a caricature (or satire) that I don't believe in, either. Robert Heinlein made God a character in one or two of his novels, portraying Him as a petulant little kid demanding worship and recognition and throwing the most malicious (but also silly!) temper tantrums when He didn't get what he wanted. <br /> <br /> Well, I don't want to worship a petty tyrant either. That's why I won't emigrate from the US and try to join some Communist country like North Korea or Cuba, where they have revived [[human worship]]. I can't respect, let alone worship, anyone (or Anyone) who cares so much more about himself (or Himself) than about others, that he (or He) would strike them dead with thunderbolts, or send 52 bears to rend them into bits, or damn then to an eternity of [[hell|unremitting torture]].<br /> <br /> So, you see, atheists and I have a lot in common, in terms of the sort of pernicious nonsense we refuse to believe in.<br /> <br /> But there's another side to God, or perhaps an aspect that has been disregarded, and it might be the key to His true nature. It might even open a door to belief for those who have rejected traditional beliefs. <br /> <br /> * &quot;The Higher Power we seek is loving and supportive. ... we have faith in the goodness of our Higher Power's will for us ...&quot; (from a [[Twelve Step]] program)<br /> <br /> If you can't believe in a '''good''' God, that's fine. But please don't let your inability to believe in a malicious god or God stop you from being open to faith in a good God. Okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:06, 1 September 2010 (EDT)<br /> :::Atheists have still not come to grips with the evidence for the resurrection. Where are the distinguished atheist lawyers who have written cogently against the arguments contained in [[Christian legal apologetics]]? You cannot name one lawyer, can you? Furthermore, when you actually have a cogent argument against God not punishing those who commit evil, please get back to us. Lastly, atheists have no moral leg to stand on for two reasons: They have yet to articulate a basis for morality apart from God (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_the_Existence_of_Evil and [[atheism and morality]] ) plus there is the issue of [[atheism and mass murder]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:12, 1 September 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *As for the issue of atheism and mass murder, I have another rebuttal :). Throughout history, people of all religions have gone on to become mass murderers, whether it be Hitler or the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition. For the sake of argument, we can say that Hitler and Stalin were both atheists. There is no evidence that the atheism of these two (rather than inherent mental illness and overall insanity) caused their mass murder. I'm sorry, but to say that atheism is the cause of mass murder is ridiculous. Millions of people have been and continue to be killed in the name of God, whether it be the Christian God of the Crusaders or the Muslim God of the Terrorists--or the manufactured Gods of the communist party, for that matter. Don't be swayed by shallow arguements. [[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 01:20, 18 November 2010 (PST)<br /> ::::Thanks for the input. As a result of your input, I added pertinent [[Vox Day]] material concerning atheism and mass murder to the Conservapedia's main atheism article. Also, if you wish to make claims concerning statistical matters that are given credence, you are going to have to cite relevant and authoritative data/statistics. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:09, 19 November 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Exposing a false argument==<br /> <br /> This would be a good rebuttal to something I saw on YouTube:<br /> &quot;Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.&quot; - Sir Martin Rees (astronomer)<br /> <br /> Hope this helps. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:03, 14 November 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> --&gt; I have a rebuttal for your rebuttal. I agree with Sir Martin Rees--this is common sense--but I also must note that if there is an absence of evidence then there is no reason to believe in the thing that there is no evidence for, in this case the existence of God. You are completely free to believe whatever you want, as it is none of my business to attack your beliefs on personal grounds, but I want to ask my fellow conservatives to stop attacking atheists in general. Believe it or not, 99.9999% of atheists are not liberal numskulls like Richard Dawkins. I do not condone attacking people for their beliefs, or imposing your lack of belief on someone else, no matter how you feel about those beliefs. Everyone has a reason to believe what they believe. I hope you guys can extend the same respect to atheists. -- &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Moderate|Moderate]]&lt;/sup&gt;01:14, 18 November 2010 (PST)<br /> :::&quot;Fellow conservatives&quot;. Very amusing. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:58, 19 November 2010 (EST)<br /> ::::I am a conservative, just not a religious conservative. While it may be impossible to support the entirety of the (American) conservative social agenda without the background context of Christianity, I am as close to it as you can get and am the pure definition of an economic conservative. [[User talk:Moderate|Moderate]]&lt;/sup&gt;17:56, 19 November 2010 (PST)</div>

SaWi