Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 167 (388383)
03-05-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
03-03-2007 11:13 AM


Love the new avatar
Some more screaming weasel pogo shtick:
Conservapedia:
LiberalThe term "liberal" comes from the aftermath of the French Revolution, where it meant someone who advocated more powerful elected assemblies.
"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.
The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Examples of liberal beliefs include:
* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion
* prohibiting prayer in school
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.[1]
An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":[2]
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
So liberals did not exist before the french revolution?
They cite Dictionary.com as a reference but it says:
lib·er·al - adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
-noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Let's not mention that the American Revolution was a Liberal program ... the Conservatives were the Tories.
ConservativeA conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.[1]
A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support free enterprise and oppose inflation. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.
Every 20-60 years a conservative is elected president of the United States. Examples include:
George Washington
James Monroe
Grover Cleveland
Warren G. Harding
Ronald Reagan
That's it? Boy that's a majority position alrighty eh?
Of course giving gays equal opportunity to get married is not included ...
They do NOT reference Dictionary.com which says:
con·serv·a·tive - adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
-noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.
Nothing there about government size (which is blown out of the water by the current administration, which built on both Bush I and Regan government growth).
The conservapedia entries do not bear any resemblance to dictionary.com definitions.
By contrast the "biased" wikipedia entries are (in part ... just the first parts ...):
(Liberal switched to Liberalism)
LiberalLiberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]
Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect what they perceive to be natural rights, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are rejected as interference by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.
and (Conservative switched to Conservatism)
ConservativeConservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term derives from the Latin, conservre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.
Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.”[1] Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism.”[2]
Conservatism has not produced, nor does it tend to produce systematic treatises like Hobbes’ Leviathan or Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Consequently, what it means to be a conservative today is frequently the subject of debate and a topic muddied by association with various (and often opposing) ideologies or political parties.
Although political thought, from its beginnings, contains many strains that can be retrospectively labeled conservative, it was not until the Age of Reason, and in particular the reaction to events surrounding the French Revolution of 1789, that conservatism began to rise as a distinct attitude or train of thought. Many suggest an earlier rise of a conservative disposition, in the wake of the Reformation, specifically in the works of influential Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker - emphasizing moderation in the political balancing of interests towards the goals of social harmony and common good. But it was not until Edmund Burke’s polemic - Reflections on the Revolution in France - that conservatism gained its most influential statement of views.
These entries DO closely match the dictionary.com definitions.
And it looks like "Conservatism" got it's start with the French Revolution .... ???
LOL.
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link per moose request

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 11:13 AM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-05-2007 9:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 107 of 167 (388393)
03-05-2007 9:28 PM


Sun
The sun is a star, a giant ball of flaming gas. It provides the Earth with light and heat. In Christian theology, God created the sun on the first day of Creation. [1]
References
‘ Genesis 1
---
Oh yeah?
Damn, don't these people even read the Bible?
---
I notice that they now have 38 times more "information" on Hillary Clinton than on Iraq. This tells you everything you need to know about conservatives.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluegenes, posted 03-05-2007 10:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 119 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2007 4:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 108 of 167 (388394)
03-05-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
03-05-2007 8:39 PM


Final link is to wrong place
Need to get that last link to Wiki.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2007 8:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 167 (388402)
03-05-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
03-05-2007 5:30 PM


Re: Wiki bias
If you're able to engage some of its editors in discussion I'd like to see the results of that (if you want.)
Yeah sure. So far, no answer. I wonder how often they come around. Or they may think I'm trolling. Who knows...
I'm just making a prediction about the sort of person who goes over to create a "conservative wikipedia" simply to lock his ideological counterparts out of the debate.
The second you use it as a reference the debate is over because its too suspect as being a biased source. Its kind of like creationists using AiG or evo's using TO.
He's written about it pretty extensively. You'll notice that he wasn't one of the CPAC speakers this year; hasn't been on the panel for a while, I think.
I have no idea who was at CPAC this year, save Malkin and Horowitz.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 5:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 10:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 167 (388403)
03-05-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Hyroglyphx
03-05-2007 9:59 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Its kind of like creationists using AiG or evo's using TO.
I guess I don't understand that. I've never seen TO proven wrong about anything, and the real treasure is that they have a bibliography for every single article.
They can't be labeled suspect simply because they promote the scientific consensus of evolution. That is, after all, the scientific consensus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-05-2007 9:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 1:55 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 167 (388412)
03-05-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
03-05-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Moon Orbit
So... if the tides cause moon thingies, then what causes the tides? Or, am I being "Poed" again?
Max

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2007 7:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by kuresu, posted 03-06-2007 12:47 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2007 3:05 PM Jon has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 112 of 167 (388413)
03-05-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
03-05-2007 9:28 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
I notice that they now have 38 times more "information" on Hillary Clinton than on Iraq. This tells you everything you need to know about conservatives.
I tried "England", "God", "Jesus", "sex" (nothing there) and "homosexuality". Homosexuality had more than all the other four combined! They're weird!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 113 of 167 (388417)
03-05-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
03-05-2007 9:02 AM


Re: Moon Bulges
Tidal forces are gravitational. You can't have one body pulling on another with gravity without having the second body also pulling on the other.
As I understand it the behaviour of the moon can be calculated very accurately with newtonian mechanics - there is no mystery.
Right, I knew all that, I was into ameture astronomy for many years.
What I wasn't sure of was the claim by conservapedia. They actually claim that the tidal forces affect the moon, not the other way around?
That's something you learn in like second or third grade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2007 9:02 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by kuresu, posted 03-06-2007 12:55 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 114 of 167 (388429)
03-06-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Jon
03-05-2007 10:46 PM


Re: Moon Orbit
simple answer, so we can finish with this off-topic nonsense.
Tidal force - Wikipedia.
basically, and really simplisticly (and so, possible gross misrepresentations), tides are caused by an uneven gravitational field distribution. That uneven distribution is called a "tidal force".
ABE:
you're not being poed again. What causes tides on our planet caused Shoemaker-Levy (thanks chiroptera for the correction) to be ripped apart by jupiter. You just have a misunderstanding.
(now then, I seem to remember a certain person telling another certain person to stay out of another certain thread because the 2nd person knew squat. Does the 1st person want to make an apology to the 2nd person (seeing as how 1st person asked questions that proved his ignorance here, which was used to disqualify the 2nd person from participating in the other thread)?
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Jon, posted 03-05-2007 10:46 PM Jon has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 115 of 167 (388431)
03-06-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
03-05-2007 11:19 PM


Re: Moon Bulges
Tidal forces affect both the earth and moon. (what do you think is helping send the moon out?)
Tidal force - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2007 11:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2007 8:25 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 116 of 167 (388433)
03-06-2007 1:11 AM


OK - I declare the Earth/Moon tides sub-topic to be done
Please, nothing more on that sub-theme.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1425 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 117 of 167 (388435)
03-06-2007 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Jon
03-05-2007 1:09 AM


to the moon, alice.
edit: sorry, moose, i think i was writting this post when you posted the warning to stop.
i had to back-track to this post from a few confusing (and confused) posts. you seem to be strangely suffering from the same misconceptions the article you cite does.
but it also claims that tides cause moon "buldges"
the article you cited has:
quote:
The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design.
in other words, "god did it." not tides. further, they don't seem to understand tidal forces.
quote:
As to the Moon, the tidal forces on the Earth cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.
this implies to me that they are thinking scientists mean the changing hieght of sea level caused the moon's deformation. they don't understand the relationship or definitions, and so they uses phrases like this. and so do you. but they seem to fail to grasp that the moon is actually the cause of tides on earth, and that two bodies attract each other with gravity. the moon deforms the earth's oceans. the earth would similarly deform the moon if it were liquid. and considering that the moon does not have a core, we then have a fairly good explanation for the moon's shape: it was once liquid, specifically formed from the earth's mantle.
and that tidal forces on Earth could actually have broken the moon into pieces if it ever got too close!
tidal force is the secondary effect of gravity between two bodies. it's responsible for the earth's tides. "tidal forces on earth" is kind of an odd phrase. the moon exerts a tidal force on the earth (and vice versa). but it would be the tidal force OF the earth ON the moon that would (hypothetically) break up the moon.
not that i'm totally sure that's even possible. and that "150,000 miles" sounds rather familiar. and it's rather interesting that they believe tidal forces are strong enough to break up the moon, but not strong enough to change its shape a little.
Edited by arachnophilia, : note to moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Jon, posted 03-05-2007 1:09 AM Jon has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 118 of 167 (388439)
03-06-2007 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
03-05-2007 10:01 PM


Re: Wiki bias
I think that's the problem. t.o doesn't include enough falsehoods. It must be biased because it tells too much truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 10:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 119 of 167 (388460)
03-06-2007 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
03-05-2007 9:28 PM


That's so special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 120 of 167 (388489)
03-06-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by kuresu
03-06-2007 12:55 AM


Re: Moon Bulges
My question was more towards the actual ocean tides.
If there was no moon, would we still have tides?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by kuresu, posted 03-06-2007 12:55 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-06-2007 8:33 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024