User talk:184.6.214.237

'''Hi Guys! I finally decided to get an account here at RationalWiki! If you want to talk further about the discussions on this page, please do so on my new talk page. Thanks a lot.''' --The Debater (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Fun:Andrew Schlafly" Page Deletion Discussion
Please post your comments or questions just before the 'welcome' header. (not scattered all over the page). Thank You.

I'm sorry for putting my opinion (probably held by others as well) on the main page. Do you agree that people whom you disagree with deserve this??


 * Not clear what your question is. Depends why I disagree with them. Depends what "this" is. If "this" is a puppy, and the disagreement is over the current weather in Tampa, I'm ok with it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "This" is the mockery and demeaning attitude toward another civil human being. Just blasting someone whom you disagree with does not correspond with any human law.
 * Au contraire, satire is as old as human interaction and a valid form or criticism. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And in any event, the right of freedom of speech (respected to varying degrees in the laws of modern representative democracies) is precisely and exactly the right of freedom after speech that might (or, indeed, does) offend someone. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read ? Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * When was the last time you read a conservapedia article that included this disgraceful "satire"?? Please give me the link if you have.
 * At this point I call Jack Hughes (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh... I don't think he's posting...--184.6.214.237 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite did just post a link to an article written by User: Conservative, a regular contributor to Conservapedia. If you're that angry about the satire here, you should be aware this is really just a back-and-forth sort of thing. If Andrew Schlafly is one of your instructors, I recommend you take the summer break to find a new history teacher. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm angry with satire period. If I were worried about the extremeness of conservapedia's satire, I would be commenting on that as well. The article that he referenced only comments on an eating issue. While altogether wrong as well, they are not entirely demeaning him like this "Fun" page is.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But you're a regular user there and do nothing about it. What was that about motes and sticks? Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have satire. CP over the course of its history has featured hate speech directed towards homosexuals, anti-woman screeds, raging paranoia about immigrants and Muslims, and total denialism about things like African-American and Native American history. If you want to get angry, get angry at the people who aren't joking. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see this page, and my knowledge of good and evil tells me that the "fun" page is wrong and immoral. When I go to conservapedia, I see a good amount of bias, yet I do not see much mockery. The bias on conservapedia is expected, hence, "conservapedia". But the mockery here, and the bias, is uncalled for in the name of the organization. I don't know what you mean by "motes and sticks", maybe metaphorical.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You state all this stuff about hate speech, and raging paranoia, and denialism, etc... What do you think gets these politicians elected into office?? As you (and others) state this stuff, it gets immigrants, and muslims, and all those stated to vote liberal. Look back in history. Who were the radicals throughout the centuries. It was the liberals.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See the first few verses of the seventh chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. See also our article on psychological projection. Give due consideration to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me... Is "RationalWiki" as supportive of the Bible and the Christian Religion as Conservapedia??--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * More so. We'd never attempt to edit someone else's religious text. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Who has the authority to delete the "Fun:Andrew Schlafly" page on (RationalWiki)?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I, also, am Spartacus! 184, with your question, you have outed yourself as an authoritarian, wanting to be in the firm grasp of a controlling entity. The mob here does things differently. Join us, and free your soul! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If your standard of supporting Christianity and the Bible is a website that set out to REWRITE THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE to fit one guy's politcal agenda, then I would say you need to re-evaluate your theological position. And any article can be deleted if the community reaches a consensus that it needs deleting. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am just stating that your organization does not favor anything that is anti-liberal (AKA. Anti-Bible) in most cases.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The new testament of the bible is a liberal document. In it Jesus attacks the rich bankers (Matthew 21:12), he advises that people give all their stuff to the poor (Matthew 19:21), opposes public prayer (Matthew 5:44), opposes strict enforcement of religious laws (Matthew 12:11), and the death penalty (Matthew 7:1, Matthew 5:21). Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone can put a delete tag on the article. It will then go to a vote - you know, democracy and all that - and, if enough people agree that it should be deleted then it will go. Now, having said that, the chances of it actually being accepted for deletion vary between none and **** all so putting the delete template there would be an almighty waste of everybody's time and effort. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so if I went to the page (AND ADDED MY DISBELIEF IN HOW IDIOTIC AND STUPID THE "FUN" PAGE IS), no one would (UNDO MY CHANGES)??!!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I probably would. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's pretty honest. But what reason do you have to hate him? HAVE YOU MET HIM Would every person who contributes to this page please tell me if they have met Andy Schlafly. Thank You.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What leads you to believe I hate him? I think he's a mope, a pretty disgusting person, stupid and worth of mocking, but I don't think I'd go to "hate." Why is meeting him relevant? What is your relation to the man? Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You kind of already answered my question about hate. Lets say that you see a man on a street in New York City, and you already know that he opposes your point of view. Would you start calling him a "dope", "pretty disgusting person", "stupid and worth of mocking"? Now, let's just pretend that you do, yet, you later find out that this same person saved your life and would do it again. Is he given the respect that is due him from you??--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a mope, a pretty disgusting person or stupid and worth of mocking. Only some. Luckily, given the huge number of people in the world, the chances that the very few people who I think are mopes, disgusting persons or stupid and worth of mocking are likely to be in a position to save my life. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * EC If the man opposed my point of view because he had well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence that led him to a conclusion that was different from my own, I would not call him any of those things. If the man's opposition to my point of view was grounded in ignorance, narrow-mindedness, willful blindness to opposing evidence and a visceral hatred for people who did not share his ideology, I would find his politics and his views worthy of contempt and ridicule. If he saved my life, my awareness of our shared humanity would remind me of the fundamental potential for goodness in all of God's creation, if you will. But that wouldn't mean much if the guy still largely behaved like a jerk. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 17:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All people deserve a voice, and NONE should be stamped out!!! All disagreements should be held to yourself and not put on a slandering page. (unless you are in direct conflict with the person, such as in politics.)--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is mocking someone stamping out their voice, exactly? If I were to estimate your age, I'd say you were approximately 14 years old. Is that about right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This "fun" page is very biased, and for all the users of (RationalWiki), they are getting only one side of the story. If you have quoted facts about Andy, and regarded both opinions (left AND RIGHT) as at least possible, then you could be recognized as a non-biased company. As for my age, I find your guess from analysis very disturbing. A persons age cannot be determined by his opinions. Wise-up.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So I was right on the money at 14 then? RationalWiki is supposed to be biased - see SPOV. Your age was not determined by your opinions, but rather your word choice and other hints. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is how you liberals operate. MY AGE IS NONE OF YOUR BUISNESS. Who do you think you are? (If you are the one who keeps changing 'delete' to 'goat' I know exactly who you think you are.)--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Delete" and "Goat" are separate sections. "Goat" was added after the other two sections already existed. "Goat" is a traditional section in RationalWiki polls and stands for "Other opinions", "Comments", "This poll is pointless", etc. Removing the "Goat" section header in this case, like you did at least two times, creates the impression that the comments left in that section are actually "Retain" votes.
 * So you are either dishonest, or incompetent. Pick one.--MonarchofascistBulgarian M36 Helmet side view.jpgС нами Бог! 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry. I don't do much wiki-posting. I thought that someone was trying to vandalize the poll.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The new testament of the bible is a liberal document. In it Jesus attacks the rich bankers (Matthew 21:12), he advises that people give all their stuff to the poor (Matthew 19:21), opposes public prayer (Matthew 5:44), opposes strict enforcement of religious laws (Matthew 12:11), and the death penalty (Matthew 7:1, Matthew 5:21). Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And the person who wrote THE DISGRACEFUL PIECE OF JUNK above actually contributes to different wikis???!!! You sir need to rethink your political strategy... If you are actually trying to say that the Bible is A LIBERAL BOOK, you need to go read it for a change, rather than comment about it from what your parents, and co-workers, and friends on the left tell you.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And I'm an administrator on Conservapedia on a different name! The New Testament of the bible is quite liberal. What parts do you think are conservative? Focus on bits after 4 Maccabees. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

' When will you guys create a fun page for Bill Clinton? '


 * Probably never. Why are you so focused on Bubba? Wasn't he president before you were aware? Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Become more aware, and you might not say stuff like that. You would never go for a fun page on Bill Clinton, the lier himself.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [ec]Mrs. Cogswell has met Bill Clinton. They had a nice chat after her band played for a fund-raiser where he was the keynote speaker. She says he has nice eyes, and is very personable. I would much rather count on him to stay cool-headed and proactive in a life-or-death situation than Andy "deer in the headlights" Schlafly. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What did he lie about that you care so much about? David Vitter. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the pubic has a clear idea of what he lied about. He not only lied as sitting president, but he lied UNDER OATH. You can speculate if he could have ran longer if he had not quit right then, but the fact is: HE WAS IMPEACHED.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No one cares about blowjobs. It's not even fucking, or anal fucking, or even just the tip. Weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, we care about, oath or no oath. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So you did know?! Wow, I believe you just changed your position on something! Good job!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what lie you care so much about? Why does Bubba lying about getting a beej from the intern bother you so much? PS: Do not edit other peoples comments about fucking sex, anywhere. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Under my watch, no one curses or talks about (not family friendly) things. I'm sorry if that's uncommon for you.

''Alright folks, That's all for now. Thanks for the discussion. I think that it was very productive. Have a terrific day! God bless! (you too 'Hippocrite', may we disagree in peace)'' --184.6.214.237 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
That edit will never stick. Are you one of Schlafly's students, by chance? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In particular, the edit doesn't belong in the body of the article. It is commentary on the article, and so belongs in the talk page for the article. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And there's no need to shout. Putting things in huge fonts will get reverted whether we feel they are appropriate or not. But you just wanted to be reverted to feed your sense of martyrdom so we've done you a favour. Godspeed! Jack Hughes (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Signatures
Please sign your comments with four tildes (this thing: ~) or click the pencil icon in the edit box. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry about that. Thank you for letting me know.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup yup. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses
From conservapedia - this little gem. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Maybe you ought to go over there and tell conservative to stop mocking those he hasn't met. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The language on this page.
Please try to bear in mind that this editor has identified him/herself as a child, assume that she/he said that in good faith, and conduct yourself accordingly. Most responsible adults would not speak to a 14-year-old boy or girl using much of the vocabulary on this page in person--why do so in writing? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping me battle with the great "user:Hypocrite", but I believe that you misunderstood. My age has not been released!! Everyone should stop supposing that i'm some idiotic kid!!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought I had read that you had said something about your age. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's alright. Everyone seems to enjoy putting words in my mouth around here, so that kinda got passed around. I totally understand. I have found that a debate is much more productive and educational when curse words and off-topic stuff is omitted. Again, thanks for helping me out.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

About the ban
Please don't take the ban as punitive, I just think that you might wish to look into other areas of the site where you can contribute. The consensus appears to be to keep the page, perhaps it's just time to move on. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not what the facts show. Already, two users agree that the page should be deleted, whereas, three agree that it should stay. Sounds to me like a 2 to 3 ratio?! Your comments, please. (ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE BAN, PLEASE DO SO ON THE TALK PAGE IN ITS SECTION. Thanks.)--184.6.214.237 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: Goat, in this context, means keep (with a rewrite perhaps). Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 01:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If it meant keep, it would be called "retain". The people who write in that section are not clear in their opinion, hence, "goat" (still don't know why its called "goat" rather than "undecided" or "neutral". To be debated.). If they were sure that, at the present moment, they do not want the page to be deleted, they should post in the "retain" section (I guess that they have commitment-phobia).--184.6.214.237 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, do you happen to know what order the topics are in on the "talk" page for "Fun:Andrew Schlafly"? Thanks for your help.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk page entries are date-stamped. Follow along chronologically. The Captain does not know what he's talking about. "Goat," which has been part of RatWiki culture since the early days, does not mean what he says. It means "I don't care," "This is silly," "Grow up," "Go away," or perhaps something along the lines of "There may be an issue here, but this is not the right question." If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 02:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the fact that most of them said that if this particular article should go, so should the rest of funspace (note the "in this context"). The general message that most of them are giving is "buzz off," or at least that how I was interpreting it. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 02:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since "Goat" does not directly mean "Retain", i'm going to assume that there is a reasonable amount of users who would like the page deleted (enough users to make my efforts reasonable).--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(User:Captain Swing), are you for or against the deletion? You posted a "*comment*" in the delete section of the poll. If you are for the deletion, that's fine, but if you're against it (you vote for retain), then please put your comments in the section just above the poll. Thanks.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tolerated your nonsense long enough. you DO NOT get to change the definition of goat. "Goat" is an expression of contempt for the entire discussion. Basically we think your poll is stupid and we are laughing at you. Do you understand that? VOX  HUMANA  13:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. To put it in terms a five-year-old may understand, the goat says meh. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't know how well I understand that. You can then keep your stupid "goat" section; just put its definition next to it please. I will be putting a neutral/undecided section for those who happen to NOT disagree OR agree.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

MAY YOU PLEASE ADD A DEFINITION TO "GOAT"!!! THANK YOU.-184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people???!! So now you block my ip?? Sounds like someone couldn't hold their temper, and now decides to silence a voice. Thank you so much. Another proof that you liberals just destroy alternate viewpoints from your own. So why did you block my ip?? Because I asked you to add a definition to "goat" and added a neutral/undecided section??--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's got nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, and everything to be with you being a tedious douche. You haven't been silenced, everything you wrote has been left in place. We're just bored with you. VOX  HUMANA  13:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, if you all already know what goat means, then I guess there doesn't have to be a definition. But, is there anything wrong with having a neutral/undecided section?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any value added by having one? Your poll is dead. It's time to move on, son... Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Son!!... Wow, pretty demeaning. Yeah there is. As long as the poll exists, it should have an option to be undecided or neutral (just like every poll does?!).--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not "every poll" has a neutral/undecided option, this one being the handiest counterexample. If my misfiring synapses are to be trusted, most polls on this site are limited to yes/no/goat or some near equivalent. You may safely assume that the neutral/undecided folks are to be found among the masses who couldn't be asked to open an edit window and say something. The subtext of that is plainly, "no one gives a hoot" (in Bowdlerized terms, since you seem to be a "no cussing club" type.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following my clean policy. I understand what you're saying, but what detriment would there be in having a "neutral" section?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So you'll defend someone as disgusting as Andy Schlafly, but cussing bothers you? Wow, that's an incredibly bizarre moral code you're running there. VOX  HUMANA  23:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointless poll for our clueless IP
I already know what GOAT means

'''User:Powdersmokeandleather, why did you undo my deletion of this poll? I understand what you're saying: no need for a definition. Why must you rub it in?'''--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are community property and are not to have material removed unless it's blatantly abusive. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 18:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But what's the point of taking up the space on your servers if this topic has already been resolved?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you care? You won't even have the courtesy to take out an account. But--posterity, institutional memory, and it seeing as how the edits in question are in the archives anyway, it doesn't save any space in the first palce. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes no difference. Having this huge poll at the bottom of MY talk page is not very cool, given that it does not tell us anything that we didn't know, and it basically exists to paint me as a jerk.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You see, there's your problem -- you need to understand that it's not YOUR talk page; it's OUR talk page. Unless you can provide some sort of documentation that you paid for it. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 18:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So, would you mind if I just went over to YOUR talk page, and wrote a poll that did not have anything to do with you?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not in the least. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 19:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree

 * 1)  VOX  HUMANA  13:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Spud (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) Jack Hughes (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

GNG (Gngs Not Goat)

 * 1) Hipocrite (talk)  17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Conservative"
You keep calling yourself "conservative." Could you describe what that entails? Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably that there's more than one person editing from this IP. Генгис silverbrain.png 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ...and that more than one persone is having some fun. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Trust me guys, last time I checked, i'm one person (haha). Is there something wrong with "having some fun?" I don't understand what that means in this context. Anyways, its good that I can finally converse with you guys without being textually bombarded or banned. A good definition for "conservative" can be found on Conservapedia (or if you absolutely hate that organization as I would imagine) you can find one on Wikipedia (a remarkably unbiased wiki, unlike this one). Cheers.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia's definition of conservatism is to the actual definition as Whale.to is to medicine. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 02:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it puzzling you would put forward Conservapedia's definition as an acceptable one. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are political and economic viewpoints (as indicated in Wikipedia, in any dictionary, any text on political philosophy, in fact pretty much everywhere except CP) yet Conservapedia regards Christianity and Conservatism as inextricably linked. Under CP's definition, it is impossible to be a Conservative atheist, or a liberal Christian, yet both exist (and in great numbers). Furthermore there are Islamic, Hindu and even Buddhist conservative movements. Given that, on what basis can you defend the Conservapedia definition? VOX  HUMANA  05:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are a liberal christian, or a conservative atheist, you did not completely think out your personal opinions, and are not following what your Church teaches (or... whatever atheists do). Go over to any atheist and ask him if he's conservative, or if he thinks that an atheist should EVER be a conservative. Another thing: if a person is an atheist, he did not think out all of creation fully, so why would he think correctly about economic/social values, or anything for that matter. To say that the entire universe became by chance is the effect of someone who does not want to be held accountable by a just God, so by way of transitive thinking, they must be liberal (note: "does not want to be held accountable"). Being a liberal Christian is the cause of not letting go of a previous point of view, even though it completely contradicts the way-of-life itself. Pro-abortion/highly biased/GAY MARRIAGE/etc... The reasons can go on and on. For those reasons are why Christians are inexplicably linked to the opposite side or further away from the liberal movement (conservatism). If the Conservapedia article states that Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist people are tied to either one side or the other, that is for them to dispute, not me. I hold that the Conservapedia definition of conservatism is correct mostly because IT WAS WRITTEN BY CONSERVATIVES. If I was looking for a good definition of liberalism, I would use a liberal wiki (like this one). People who write what they themselves believe in an article of liberalism or conservatism AS LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES show the most accurate way of finding out exactly what they believe as conservatives or liberals, and thus, would be supporting their own point of view AS liberals/conservatives. The Wikipedia article about conservatism is unbiased mostly because ONLY CONSERVATIVES EDIT IT. Thank you so much for reading this long reply. Cheers.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the Episcopal Church is not christian? Why or why not? What does it take to be a christian, in your mind? Why are you solely focused on social issues? Aren't economic conservatives conservative, or does conservatism only deal with social issues? You allege that Conservapedia was written by conservatives. I allege it was not. I argue it was written by authoritarianists, or, alternatively, nationalists. You further ignore any non-religious reason to be ethical - including, for instance, social contracts, moral realism, and the entirety of moral sense theory. The wikipedia article on conservatism is mostly edited by liberals. The best describer of beliefs is not the holder of said belief, but a dispassionate observer of said believers. For instance - you still are unable to describe what you believe "conservatism," to be. Why not do that? Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you still here?? Read my article above yours first, and then think about what I said. Why must I explain what a conservative is when it is stated well elsewhere and i'll just be battled profusely if I do?? Wikipedia is not only edited by liberals. If it was, it would end up like this wiki. Read a definition of conservative on Wikipedia or Conservapedia, and align me with that in your mind. What does the Episcopal Church have to do with it? Only you "User:Hipocrite" would dare criticize the almost perfect explanation I stated in my article. Please, let others debate.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to be a regular contributor...
Would you please take a second and make an account. I believe "good manners" and "consideration," are, after all, conservative values. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What difference would it make for me or you?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. It would be nice to have a name for you -- BoNs tend to all bleed together. 2. The named account can be set to auto-patrolled so that you did not leave annoying red marks in the Recent Changes page. 3. If you came to our house for coffee and conversation, I would expect to at least know your name. That's what people do. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What difference is it that I have a name? Last time I checked, your name is: "PowderSmokeAndLeather". If that's really your name, i'd like to meet your mother and father. They'd probably be pretty interesting. I don't think that it is a usual policy to give away your name to a million different people without even meeting with them, so I don't blame you for using an alternative. I'll tell ya what: I'll think about getting an account. Cheers.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BoN editors leave ugly red exclamation points in the RC. It's a real eyesore for regular users. Please take out an account. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Account creation issues
Watch here for a reply. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)