Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism and bestiality"

Revision as of 20:57, January 13, 2019

I don't even know what to say about this article...

I was going to leave Conservapedia but when I see this kind of article, I just can't. Conservative, do you know that you are becoming very offensive?
I heard that you were always eager to debate. I have a lot of questions about christianity & atheism that I would like to discuss. Would you be willing to answer my questions ?--ARamis 16:56, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Given various statistics about atheism and historical data (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and uncharitableness), atheists cannot take the moral high ground.

As a cheap substitute, they often desperately engage in the fallacy of exclusion in order to disqualify information from being seen by the public. This is rather ironic given the pretentious moniker of freethinker than some atheists go by. See also: Atheism and arrogance and Brights Movement. Conservative 14:38, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Is the reason why you don't know what to say about the Atheism and bestiality article is that I pick reputable sources plus have 24 pages of relevant information? Conservative 23:06, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Then, would you accept my offer to debate ?--ARamis 16:36, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

If memory serves, the Bible mentions and condemns this practice 4 separate times and it does so in a non-salacious manner. For thousands of years the Bible has been taught to children with very beneficial effects. Conservapedia also condemns this practice and points out it being mentioned inapropriately by members of the immoral worldviews of atheism/evolutionism which denies the existence of God despite the abundant evidence for God's existence and Conservapedia's article does so in a non-salacious manner. The atheistic worldview has a history of mass murder (see: Atheism and mass murder and Abortion and atheism ). Question: Did Moses and God make a mistake by mentioning this practice in the Bible 4 separate times? If so, why? Also, the real issue is that the articles are further pointing out the immorality within atheism/evolutionism and Wikipedia and you don't like it, isn't it? If not, why not? Well, tough. There is no need to cater to liberal censorship in this matter. Conservative 05:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Absolutely revolting. Andy Schlafly, please put an end to this.

Disgusted. As a Christian I am reviled by this. There are no links that support what this Peter Singer said, merely heresy from another website which doesn't state its sources. Then it is taken to paint a group of people in the same stripe. Absolutely immoral, unsupported filth. MaxFletcher 17:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

What's next? Atheism and masturbation? Oh wait, masturbation is a naughty word - even the spam-filter doesn't like it. Bestiality should be added to the list! RonLar 17:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Yeah this is really bad, not that anything else this user has done has been that much better. -1 for lack of fatty fat fat ad hominems and lack of bunny photos. --MarkN85 17:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I suggest Atheism and Mass Murder or Atheism and Racism. Oh wait, it already exists ! That's just great encyclopedic content ! And so objective by the way !--ARamis 17:22, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I saw your response and noticed that you started it off with "I suggest..." so I stopped reading it, but here's an article on flying cats instead. --MarkN85 17:23, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

there is no support for this claim - this user is trolling. Lowering the tone immensely. MaxFletcher 17:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

User:conservative is trying too hard--CamilleT 18:32, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

It was incredibly easy to find 4 pages of relevant material on this topic. Given the depravity of atheism this is not entirely surprising. As far as what is next, I have not given the topic or timing of my next article on atheism although I have alluded to an upcoming article on atheism to a Conservapedian. Conservative 22:11, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

That is wonderful, when shall we see it? And Conservative, you state that atheists are depraved. I personally know many atheists and none of them are depraved in any way you have implied. --SeanS 22:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

SeanS, it is just useless, for Conservative loves to make up a rule from 1 case...--ARamis 22:22, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

If memory serves, the Bible mentions and condemns this practice 4 separate times and it does so in a non-salacious manner. For thousands of years the Bible has been taught to children with very beneficial effects. Conservapedia also condemns this practice and points out it being mentioned inapropriately by members of the immoral worldviews of atheism/evolutionism which denies the existence of God despite the abundant evidence for God's existence and Conservapedia's article does so in a non-salacious manner. The atheistic worldview has a history of mass murder (see: Atheism and mass murder and Abortion and atheism ). Question: Did Moses and God make a mistake by mentioning this practice in the Bible 4 separate times? If so, why? Also, the real issue is that the articles are further pointing out the immorality within atheism/evolutionism and Wikipedia and you don't like it, isn't it? If not, why not? Well, tough. There is no need to cater to liberal censorship in this matter. Conservative 05:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Support ?

Conservative, could you please provide some support that Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality ?--ARamis 18:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I cited a source plus in case you are forgetting you are on the information superhighway. I suggest going to a search engine and typing in the words Peter Singer. The reason I am taking you to task is that I think you are being lazy and/or contentious. Conservative 22:01, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Please avoid being insulting, Conservative. I did actually googled it but I found nothing except from anti-atheists websites (like creation.com) which cannot really be considered as objective on this matter.--ARamis 22:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Please do not waste my time and second I don't believe you. Conservative 02:30, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Oh you're right, that's just a waste of time. I forgot that Conservapedia is not a democracy, it's all about aristocracy: the king Andy who rules his kingdom seconded by his lords. And when Lord Conservative speaks, no one may dare oppose him. Thanks for reminding me of this.--ARamis 16:36, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Error

Where ever you copied this from, Conservative. There's a misplaced "2" in your Stalin paragraph (clearly should have been a reference). There's also a typo in reference #11. ~ JonG ~ 02:46, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, removed.Conservative 02:28, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

To Aschlafly: Unprotect request

As it appears you believe this article adds to Conservapedia's value as an educational resource, can you please unprotect it - and make sure it stays unprotected - so that the entire CP community can help to improve it? Thanks. --SamCoulter 21:57, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Extension suggestion

Could someone add the passages of the Scripture regarding bestiality (Leviticus 18: v 23, Leviticus 20: v 15 and Deuteronomy 27: v 21)please? I would also suggest an historic part about bestiality in Europe (for instance the story of Leda and the swan in ancient Greek mythology) and how the rise of christianity helped to rid Europe and the world of bestiality. Or would that be a stand-alone article? À Dieu --VPropp 14:53, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Added Bible versus. Second, please create a section/article here User: VProppand/atheism-bestiality-Europe and focus on how/why Christianity helped greatly reduce bestiality in Europe and then I can add it. Also, if there is somewhat of a resurgence in bestiality in a Europe that is less Christianized and you can document it in a non-salacious way, then do that too. Please make sure you use reputable sources (not salacious sources) and I would prefer no pictures. Indicate on this talk page when you are done. Conservative 15:17, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

VPropp, here are sources that are interesting and it relates to history: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7858632 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19239958 Also, I can check back on this web page to see if you did the article. When should I check back? Conservative 21:20, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Psst! I got a secret for you...

As the author of this entry is quite fond of touting how prominently their articles show up in search results... one has to ask: why is User:Conservative purposely trying to undermine his/her own efforts? And by extension, Conservapedia as a whole? I am sure that the author of this very encyclopedic entry is well aware that most God fearing people enable the "Safe Search" feature so as not to be assaulted with any vile anti-Christian filth. Well guess what chief? With safe search on, the most popular search engine in the world filters out all pages containing the word bestiality. So go right on adding that word to your feverish heart's content. But keep in mind that every page you pepper with your current favorite word, is another page that disappears from millions of search results. You're welcome. --SteveK 22:51, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

You claim the article is anti-Christian, but you failed to show it. Seeing that the Bible mentions bestiality 4 times, I think you face an uphill battle in proving your claim. You are just upset because it shows atheists and secular societies in a bad light. Conservative 03:06, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Who said I created this article to get web traffic? Second, are search engines the only way to get web traffic? I have found that cognitive flexibility and logical thinking are not strengths of many atheists. :) Conservative 05:39, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

What do you think is better access than a search engine ?--ARamis 16:28, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

All God fearing Christians use the GoodSearch search engine to rack up donations for their favorite Christian charities and as you can see for yourself this article does quite well at Goodsearch. :) Conservative 10:13, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

The what? Never 'eard of it, nor have my biblical literalist conservative god fearing parents, nor my biblical literalist conservative god fearing church. --SeanS 10:35, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

A Conservapedian told me about it. Conservative 10:56, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Anyways, it is a moot point. Most of the web traffic to the article is probably going to be caused by internal traffic from Conservapedia. Conservative 11:19, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

For what it's worth

For what it's worth, I do think there is something of an omission in all these articles, which is any examples of atheists who have actually committed bestiality. It's mostly about them not condemning it, which is unbiblical, but which I think is just as likely to stem from naivety (not having thought a great deal about what the practice actually entails) as from depravity.

Can anyone suggest any prominent atheists who commit bestiality as well as condoning it?--CPalmer 11:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

CPalmer, can you name a single atheist book which condemns bestiality? I know that the Bible condemns bestiality! Checkmate atheists! Conservative 00:54, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Another thought: of course it's relevant to cite the Bible, but fully half of the verses that mention it (two) recommend the death penalty for bestialters. Should this be mentioned? Do any countries currently execute for this crime?--CPalmer 11:15, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I can't find any examples. To be honest I wouldn't expect many people, atheists or otherwise, to go around condemning bestiality all the time. Constant condemnation of a pretty rare practice seems to imply that you're thinking about it to a degree that's not... entirely normal. Anyway I've lived in the UK for 40 years and the only time bestiality ever gets mentioned is when people make jokes about the Welsh, so it would be fair to say it's not a big social issue here. --ThomasMacD 11:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

re: CPalmner's above comments: If someone wants to do research on the atheist Marquis de Sade and the Oxford nihilist A.C Swindburne that would be fine. Here is what I found: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/swinburne/acsbio1.html Conservative 13:20, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Also, I seem to recall that Conservapedia has a list of atheist killers/serial killers and my guess is that some of them may have engaged in this act. Again, this would require more research. Conservative 13:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

That link says nothing about de Sade practicing bestiality and only says that Swindburne circulated a story about it; it also points out that he frequently spread untrue stories about himself. This isn't evidence. --ThomasMacD 13:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Actually, I think the article says the Wilde accused him of spreading stories which is not the same thing. Conservative 14:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I know Jeffrey Dahmer was an evolutionist and he may have been an atheist. I don't know. He seems to have done evil things to animals but I don't know the specifics http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2009/03/john-coopes.html

This website indicates that Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist: http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/ If memory serves, I do realize he converted to Christianity in jail. Conservative 13:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but is there any evidence that Dahmer committed bestiality? --ThomasMacD 13:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

The fact is that both atheists and Christians practice bestiality (don't even get me started on muslims) and what we need is evidence that atheists are more likely to do so. --ThomasMacD 14:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I was very clear that I said I don't know and I only have a report he did evil things to animals. You seem awfully defensive. Conservative 14:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm not being defensive; I'm just suggesting that if we want to suggest a link between atheism and bestiality it would be nice to have evidence that a higher percentage of atheists than Christians commit it. --ThomasMacD 14:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

ThomasMacD, Conservapedia allows for original research that can be verified to be true. Feel free to do some original research on this issue. Best wishes on getting your grant studying this issue. Conservative 12:27, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

"...in wake of homosexual marriage being legalized in France."

Homosexual marriage has not been legalized in France. ScottDG 19:39, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

Corrected. Conservative 16:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

No it's not. There is still a section with a headline that says that homosexual marriage has been legalized in France. ScottDG 19:18, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. Conservative 19:39, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Christian apologist William Lane Craig declared this issue is a legitimate issue to confront atheists about

Christian apologist William Lane Craig, who is considered of Christianity's foremost apologist, declared this issue is a legitimate issue to confront atheists about.See Question and answer section of debate Conservative 03:31, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Janet thinks the atheist Christopher Hitchens was a coward when addressing this issue.[1] Conservative 12:50, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

mention shockofgod debate with President of a florida atheist humanist association on this issue

mention shockofgod debate with President of a florida atheist humanist association on this issue, podcast: http://shockawenow.webs.com/apps/podcast/podcast/159439 Conservative 02:07, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Debate was with agnostic. Conservative 07:48, 19 February 2012 (EST)

The United States and Bestiality

The Dutch newspaper article quoted in the main source for Netherlands and bestiality also reports that bestiality videos are especially popular among Germans and Americans ("Vooral bij Duitsers en Amerikanen is dierenporno geliefd"). Approximately 80% of all USA citizens are Christians. Chlamydia has been steadily on the rise in the Christian USA. Evolution is less accepted in the US than in other Western countries.

Should I add these data to the article or do they warrant a separate article on the US and bestiality? Baobab 08:15, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Biblical Christianity is against beastiality. While you have high profile atheists saying they are ok with beastiality, you don't have proponents of biblical Christianity saying that. As far as so called liberal "Christianity", it's often anything goes in terms of behavior although not as bad as atheism. What is happening among Bible believers as far as this issue?

Next, you are going to have to pay an independent translator to confirm your report plus say what the news organization's source of this claim is. You have to remember that Germany has a very large population in Europe relatively speaking plus the United States has a population of over 300,000,000 people. Atheists have shown a penchant for deceptiveness so you can't expect your claim is going to be taken at face value. (see: Atheism and deception). Conservative 12:11, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

By the way, Germany is seeking to ban bestiality.[2] Also, someone has a question about German atheists and bestiality.[3] Conservative 12:48, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

The user with screen name "Atheism is a religion" who posted the question wouldn't happen to be you, right? GregG 16:14, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

While I'm not sure of the one word, the translation of the phrase is roughly: "The market really blew up after the advent of the internet," says a former producer. "Especially for Germans and Americans is dierenporno (animal porn?) loved." My Dutch dictionary doesn't have it, and I refuse to ask my dad or my family in the Netherlands the definite meaning, given what I believe it is. SharonW 15:56, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Hi Sharon W. That is a very literal translation, but it should convince Conservative that I am not making anything up here. Baobab

My grandfather came from Nieuw Beerta, and my father speaks Dutch fairly well. Me, I can translate the papers I receive from the Netherlands for my genealogy research with the aid of my Hippocrene Dutch-English dictionary, but my grammar is extremely shaky. But I gave it my best shot. SharonW 19:34, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

What a coincidence: my father is from exactly that region in the province of Groningen! As were his ancestors. Baobab 03:24, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, I can't afford to pay a translator. Biblical Christians famously tend to have a lack of cultural and linguistic curiosity, but surely one of your fellow administrators, friends or colleagues must have a working knowledge of Dutch, the language of the country where the Pilgrim Fathers spent some time before going to England and embarking on the Mayflower.

The source of the claim is the same as the source of the claim in the article Netherlands and bestiality.

By the way, the correct spelling is bestiality. I know it looks a bit odd, but I'm afraid that's the way it is. I guess chaos would ensue if everybody chose their own favorite spelling. Baobab 14:34, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

You gave no source about biblical Christians being tone deaf culturally and linguistically. The Wycliffe Bible translators have translated the entire Bible into 700 languages plus done partial translations in many more languages.[4][5] Christian missionaries are scattered throughout the globe.[6] How many languages has The God Delusion been translated into? How many atheist missionaries are living in Africa? Christianity has a Great Commission to spread the gospel throughout the earth. Atheism doesn't have a great commission.

Lastly, if you don't have money for a translator, I suggest becoming a Protestant and being imbued with the Protestant work ethic as the atheist work ethic is not working out too well for you. I do have a friend who speaks Dutch and an acquaintance in the Netherlands who speaks Dutch as well. Unfortunately for you, their time is valuable and they would expect to get paid to translate even if I were too ask them to translate the material which I won't. I don't want my friends and acquaintances pestered by atheists - especially a tightfisted atheist who would probably be a deadbeat customer. (see: Atheism and charity and Atheism and morality). Conservative 15:14, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, there are many online freeware translating sites/pieces of software. If the article were translated by one of these, would you consider that acceptable? Come to think of it, is there a note somewhere in Conservapedia policies about what makes for an acceptable translation? If not, that's something administrators might want to consider adding.--DTSavage 15:36, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

The source for my claim is as trustworthy as the claim about atheists' deceptiveness. As far as Biblical Christian closed-mindedness and work ethics is concerned: I speak and write seven languages, which allows me to get my information from a variety of news sources and (the irony!) to give spelling lessons to native speakers like you. Anyway, I am sorry your "friends" are too stingy to even do you a small favor.

Back to the article USA and bestiality. Why do you want it to meet much stricter standards than the other articles about bestiality? Baobab 16:16, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Baobab, the Bible has been translated into 700 languages. How many languages has The God Delusion been translated into? Darwin's racist work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life has merely been translated into 35 languages.[7] It looks like Moses and Jesus wins over Darwin once again!  :) By the way, see: Western atheism and race and Atheism and evolutionary racism I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 23:30, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Shortening

Hello. I brought up this article talking to my dad today, and was reading it to myself on my phone at California Dreaming. I find that the article repeats itself way too much. For instance, the article on bestiality in say, Sweden, is word-for-word what is in the section about Sweden on this article. Maybe include the first paragraph to each section, and leave the link guiding the reader to the next article. I was going to do this myself, but the page is protected. Could this please be worked on? I've seen this on a majority of pages, mostly ones concerning atheism. Thank you. Atum 21:58, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

I prefer the article stay as informative as it is presently. If the reader just wants to scan the subtitles of the article and read just the sections he is interested in, then he is free to do so. Conservative 22:22, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

Okay, thank you. I have school (yes, public); I don't have time for here. Sorry. I'll pop in and help out when I'm bored and not wanting to do work (like right now). Atum 22:28, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

Much like the Thailand article this is not suitable for children. It seems the author has other priorities other than the best interests of the younger generation. A large number of your articles are about some perversion or another. You protest very loudly.--SammyL 14:55, 24 January 2015 (EST)

SammyL, how about you protest - very loudly - the perversions that libs and atheists are doing right now. Then you won't have to worry about seeing articles like these which report those perversions. Karajou 15:05, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Karajou, I have no problem viewing them. I am not American but am a conservative christian and was considering letting my children study Conservpedia to learn about American conservatism. My Kids are 13 and 9, do you think these topics are suitable for children of that age?--SammyL 15:13, 24 January 2015 (EST)

SammyL, the article doesn't cite any salacious/racy/pornographic sources. It largely cites mainstream newspapers, science magazines, journal articles, etc. It also quotes a professor who teaches at the University of Minnesota at Morris and his quote is not pornographic/racy.

Given various statistics about atheism and historical data (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and uncharitableness), atheists cannot take the moral high ground.

As a cheap substitute, they often desperately engage in the fallacy of exclusion in order to disqualify information from being seen by the public. This is rather ironic given the pretentious moniker of freethinker than some atheists go by. See also: Atheism and arrogance and Brights Movement.

Furthermore, the Bible mentions bestiality and condemns it. Do you allow your children to read the Bible? In addition, this article condemns bestiality. Conservative 15:47, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I suggest to mark these articles as not-family-friendly. For example with a template at the beginning of the text.--JoeyJ 16:18, 24 January 2015 (EST)

JoeyJ, please see my comment above. You didn't show that such a template is needed. Furthermore, the owner of the website generally does not like templates. He finds the abundant use of templates on wikis like Wikipedia to be a matter of poor webpage design. Conservative 16:33, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I also see atheist whining about this page as being rather hypocritical. See: Atheism and profanity and Atheism and morality and Atheist population and immorality and Atheist hypocrisy

Under an atheistic worldview, men/women are merely a collection of atoms and animals. There is no ought under an atheistic worldview. For example, please see: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler. Conservative 17:58, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Comment by SamHB

Gosh, Cons. You were doing so well over here writing about something positive, and discussing it with JohnZ. I had high hopes for a truly fine article. ("Over here" meant the Talk:Atheist_poetry page, from which this section was moved. I was complimenting Cons on writing about poetry. There is nothing positive or praiseworthy in his writing about bestiality. --SamHB (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2015 (EST)) But now you're back putting in pictures of horses. As though discussion of bestiality is going to persuade people to take up Christianity. Getting people to take up Christianity is your goal, isn't it? Can you tell us how many people you think have converted because of your discussion of bestiality?

Have you considered personal witnessing? SamHB (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2015 (EST)

I say NAAAAAY to atheism and evolutionism!

SamHB, because you are an evolutionist and a defender of evolutionary pseudoscience (along with holding to liberal theology which often tends to be anti-supernatural in character), I can understand why the evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality articles are upsetting to you - especially since you cannot find a single factual error in these articles.

The early church father Irenaeus' best-known book Against Heresies, is a detailed attack on Gnosticism. And he spread his anti-Gnosticism works far and wide.

Good sports teams teams have both an offense and a defense. Similarly, representatives of sound worldviews can not only can defend and evangelize their own worldview, but frequently they can also point out the failings of opposing worldviews.

I have noticed that post Christian response to the New Atheism that atheist apologists are less confident And I am not the only one to notice a lack of confidence among the defenders of atheism.

In 2010, Professor Eric Kaufmann, who specializes in religion/irreligion/demographics/politics and is an agnostic, wrote:

"Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."[8]

Furthermore, some of the most prominent atheists/agnostics have flip-flopped between atheism and agnosticism/theism (see: Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping).

For more information, please see: Atheism and cowardice and Rebuttals to atheist arguments

Lastly, my material has not merely discussed bestiality. The material I wrote specifically focuses on the link between atheist/evolutionist/liberal ideologies and incidences of bestiality. We both know this and you are being disingenuous. Bible believing societies/organizations don't have problems as far as "bestiality rights" organizations, notable bestiality apologists among their midst and elevated incidences of bestiality in their populations. For the sake of the defenseless animals, I wish evolutionists/atheists could say the same! Conservative (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2015 (EST)

How to copy text from another website

On just about any reasonable operating system, and just about any presentation of the text, including pdf files, click the mouse at one end of the text to be copied, drag it to the other end, and release. Type control-C. Then go to the Conservapedia article that you are editing, click the mouse at the desired insertion point, and type control-V.

Note, by the way, that the Dawkins quote had a comma on a subordinate clause, making it non-restrictive. He was saying that none of another person's sexual inclinations, as long as they do not harm others, are any of your business. You may not agree, but that's what he was saying. Without the comma, he would be saying that people should only be allowed to follow those inclinations that are none of your business, but should not be allowed to follow those inclinations that are your business.

Of course, this time I can't blame you for using an overly complex sentence. This one was Albert Mohler's fault.  :-)

We've been through this accuracy-in-copying issue before, here. Please copy carefully.

SamHB (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks for the input.

I will explain what happened. Originally, I copied the material from a PDF web page which are sometimes more challenging to cut and paste from, but this one was easy to copy from.

Next, I like to verify quotes when I am not 100% confident of the original source in terms of accuracy. I also like to cite from web pages which are long-lasting and do not disappear off the internet.

The original PDF source was not as accurate in its quotation as Mohler (for example, the parentheses were missing) and I would think Mohler's material will be maintained over time and not disappear off the internet anytime soon. If memory serves, as a result of the quote being a bit off from the original PDF source, I did a bit of editing using a methodology which allowed some human error to creep in. I also had some off wiki deadline pressure which distracted me. So a classic case of haste makes waste.

With that being said, I did fix the comma issue before I saw your input. Conservative (talk)

An Open letter to the British agnostic "Mercian"

See: Essay: Open letter to the British agnostic "Mercian"

I hope this further clarifies matters.Conservative (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2019 (EST)