Conservapedia:Bugler/An open letter from a disillusioned conservapedian

This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today. Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse. Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit. For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.

Copied from Andrew Schlafly's talk page, Dec 11th 2008. The letter is an open and honest complaint about Bugler, but we don't know how long it will last.

Trus me Conservapedia

Introduction

Newcomer's Guide What is going on?

Commentary

Best of Conservapedia Blatant plagiarism Differences with Wikipedia Hijacked articles "SDG" "TZB" "Fab Five" Sysops Timeline CP in the media

In-depth analysis

Active users Illustrated guide

Fun

Article Matrix Greatest Insights Parthian Shots v - t - e

The responses below the letter are characteristic of Andrew Schlafly's attitude and inability to admit that he is in the wrong by supporting a senior user who later turned out to be a parodist. These also feature a rather nice quote from Messr Ed Poor that claims Andrew "Revert and Block" Schlafly is a proponent of free speech.

An open letter from a disillusioned conservapedian

Andy,

I have written what follows over the course of a couple of weeks. One of the ways that I work through my frustrations is to type it all out in the form of a letter or email and then over time work through what I typed editing out unreasonable comments or inflammatory language, and removing anything that has been dealt with in the meantime. Having done so, I find that instead of removing what has been dealt with, I am constantly adding because the situation is deteriorating rather than improving.

I therefore raise this in all seriousness and with a heavy heart.

Are you going to do something about Bugler or not? As far as I am concerned, CP’s credibility hangs by a couple of very thin threads, and the answer to this question is one of them.

Bugler’s unacceptable behaviour towards other editors includes; repeatedly insulting them (e.g. calling them “idiots”, “maggots” and such), accusing them of dishonesty and deceit, attributing malicious motives to them. Bugler exhibits much disrespect to other editors. In discussion pages Bugler is not so much “often rude” as “rarely polite”. The exception to this is when interacting with other editors that he has apparently identified as “allies” (this “group” seems to have been dubbed the “posse”).

Bugler also regularly and openly abuses his blocking rights. Often Bugler uses blocks to censor dissenting opinion, and without warning. Either CP practices ideological blocking or it does not. Presently CP practices ideological blocking (at the very least through Bugler, but I think he is following the example of others in this) but claims not to. CP also states that block warnings are appropriate, but they are extremely rare, and in at least one case that I know of the warning was immediately followed by the block with no additional edits by the blocked editor (this was not one of Bugler’s; I am unaware of any warnings that he may have given).

In November 2008 alone Bugler performed the following inappropriate blocks, and the contrib. histories show the block reasons to be invalid:. At best these blocks were erroneous and careless, at worst malicious and dishonest.

• TerrenceN – 5 years - Malicious Calumny
• LowKey – 3 months – Malicious and aggressive deceitfulness
• CarolH - 5 years - Lies and Slander
• CompuHacker - 5 years – Grossly insulting all Conservapedians
• Mike770781 – 1 month – Insulting comments
• SiemerD – 1 month – 90/10 • Fdingo – 5 years – To save trouble reverting later
• GSpalding – 5 years –Abuse [Ironically, for use of the word “stupid”]
• Ema – 5 years - Slandering CP Editors

All of the stated block reasons are false, and many if true and worthy of such blocks should earn Bugler himself similar blocks. Bugler’s abuses of blocking rights (and the lack of corrective action) have been raised before, at the Desk and on Bugler’s talk page, and in fact on several sysops talk pages, and lately on your own talk page. The response is generally a rude and insulting response from Bugler and a block for the editor raising the issue. Bugler seems to believe that his block actions are beyond discussion or questioning, a view he seems to have garnered from TK.

Bugler has also very recently given a rather extreme example of rude behaviour and abuse of blocking rights in one incident. In a single post, he accused a senior administrator of personal remarks and then likened him to a “cockerel on a dunghill”; then went on to block him and after that accused him of “last-wordism”. And again the block reason is belied; the given reason was “Insulting Andy” but on his own talk page Bugler claims that he himself is the victim, and again implies that the blocked sysop (PJR, for the record) has called him a parodist, when this is the one editor consistently stating that he does not think Bugler is a parodist.

Bugler has been called a parodist often. I think this belief is understandable but incorrect. I think Bugler is what we could a “try-hard” in my neck of the woods, someone who is trying hard to be something that would impress certain others around them (I don’t think he is the only one, but he is the most blatant). My impression is that Bugler believes his bully-boy extreme behaviour will impress you, given that he usually mentions you by name or role in mid harangue. There is also the fact that certain trigger phrases like “liberal deceit” and “sterile debate” crop up gratuitously and often. Of particular concern to me as a Christian are Bugler’s comments like “Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it.”

The question in my mind is: is he right about such behaviour impressing you? Do you want CP to be the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia it claims to be, or are you happy for it to be the rightful butt of scorn? This is demonstrated by whether take action to curb such behaviour, or tolerate it and thus endorse it.

I would like to stress that Bugler is not alone in this behaviour. RodWeathers likewise blocks giving reasons at odds with actual contributions. Ed Poor also blocks without warning, giving block reasons inconsistent with contributions, but Ed is at least conscientiously civil. TK is dismissive and insulting and seems to be another try-hard.

Interestingly, the block that Bugler hit me with was undone in about 5 minutes by a sysop, and then restored by Bugler a few days later when he realised it had been unblocked. I emailed a number sysops of over time asking for someone to at least look at the block, and give me a yes/no or at least acknowledgement. Eventually, the original unblocking sysop unblocked me again – without any contact from me - and told me “Stop making comments about Bugler.” What concerns me is that the loud-and-clear message in this is “Don’t poke the bear,” which practice already looks to be in effect among even sysops judging by the silence my enquiries generated.

Why is it that some editors are allowed to make insulting and quite possibly libellous remarks with impunity, but if other editors even try to discuss this we suffer lengthy blocks? You yourself levied a 1 month block against an editor who asked for action. I have noted that comments from editors such as PJR, although about actions and not people, are denounced by you yourself as insulting, when much worse comments by Bugler unabashedly aimed at people and not actions are quietly tolerated.

Lately, Bugler has also been deleting the talk posts of other editors. These deleted posts are neither to nor about Bugler, and they are generally not offensive in language, content or tone, unless disagreement itself is now offensive.

I fully expect a lengthy (if not permanent) block for even raising this, but if CP is to be “trustworthy” it absolutely must be addressed. Every community has members that behave contrary to that community’s standards, but when the leaders of the community turn a blind eye or endorse the behaviour of those members, they effectively change the standards of that community. Those in the community that subscribe to the community’s expressed (though no longer practiced) standards have a choice of 3 actions. Firstly, they can have the issue addressed. This has been attempted without success at CP, but I am here attempting it again. Secondly, they can remain silent and accept the new standards. Scripturally, this option cannot be supported. Thirdly, they can leave and find another community that upholds the standards.

Currently the standards practiced seem to be:

1. The truth will be declared by Andy, and it is undisputed and undeniable.
2. Disputing or denying the truth as declared is censorship; worse it is liberal censorship.
3. Editors subscribing to standards 1 and 2 can say and do pretty much anything they please on CP. without fear of reprisal
4. Editors not subscribing to standards 1,2 and 3 are liberals. They have no right to respect of even civility, and may be attacked with impunity.

Frankly, I came from Wikipedia hoping to find an encyclopaedia practicing Christian standards, but the only difference I have seen is that CP claims to be such. The claims have not yet been borne out. One of the thin threads that CP’s credibility hangs by is whether or not its own rules actually mean anything in practice. Lately, they do not, as several editors in good standard disregard them at will.

Bradley LowKey 23:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Responses

"Lowkey", your rant above on my talk page is silly. I looked at your edits over the past two months and they have been mostly talk with almost no substance. Contribute first, then talk, as I'm going to do now.. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 08:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Did you actually read the so called "rant"? I did, and it is definitely not silly. Most of what he says should be carefully considered because it is firmly based on the truth. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 08:19, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Tim, your edits have also been an excess of talk. Contribute first, then talk. This is a meritocracy, and an educational project. An excessive talker lacks credibility in criticizing a real contributor.--Aschlafly 08:28, 11 December 2008 (EST)r

Lowkey, there are two issues here:

1. Bugler using unpleasant language
2. Ability of contributors to exercise free speech in discussions of article content

First, if you have problems with Bugler, you should let *me* know. As the author of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, it's largely my duty to rein in the frisky ones. No one has complained to me in a couple of weeks, so I don't understand what you are supposedly bottling up.

Second, all contributors are allowed to express their editorial disagreements. I wouldn't stay here a minute longer if I found that CP was censoring opposing POV the same way Wikipedia does. Mr. Schlafly is an even stronger proponent of free speech than I am!

Next time, instead of making a long speech - without enough examples - bring up each problem one at a time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

We can't, we get blocked for the 90/10 rule.--IanG 08:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I contribute. I share Tim's and LowKey's observations. --BRichtigen 08:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)

BRichtigen, you contribute only slightly more than Lowkey and Tim. A review of your edits sees lots of talk, and an example of "substance" is inserting a "fact" tag.

Folks, ever play on a sports team? A good coach cuts the talkers and plays the people who contribute the most value to the team. He doesn't care if the best contributers are thought to be rude or impolite by those who stand around talking all the time.--Aschlafly 08:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)

At least you acknowledge he can be rude and impolite. Also, a good coach cuts people who drag the rest of the team down, even if he alone is a good player.--IanG 08:48, 11 December 2008 (EST)

*LOL* So, how many graphs to mathematical articles do I have to provide to get a meaningful reply to LowKey's observations from you? --BRichtigen 08:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

• Hmmm, was it LowKey or you, BRichtigen, that wants a response?
• A good example for liberals of being rude, it appears, is my post on your talk page carefully laying out CP, and our stress on doing, not arguing. While I was very polite, plain-spoken, and pointed out I wasn't specifically talking about anyone on that page, I was slandered there by a so-called Administrator of Conservapedia. It is yet another example of the politics of personal destruction we have seen so much of lately from our liberal editors. --₮K^/Talk! 09:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Liberal is the new communist is the new witch. Call someone it and watch everyone scramble.--IanG 09:21, 11 December 2008 (EST)

so-called Administrator of Conservapedia? Is this your way to be polite?

Obviously, LowKey is interested in a meaningful answer to his letter. And I would like to read such a response, too.

When you like to extemporate your thoughts, speaking to no one especially, perhaps my talk page isn't the best place to do so?

Your talk-page is locked. Otherwise, I'd bring this matter to it.

--BRichtigen 09:39, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Isn't there a better place for all this than someone's talk page? Is there a page for dispute resolution or something? PeytonJ 10:16, 11 December 2008 (EST)

But this isn't just someone's talk page - as A. Schlafly is the final arbiter of all things regarding Conservapedia. Therefore, this discussion seems to be apt. --BRichtigen 10:20, 11 December 2008 (EST)

• So, whenever it suits liberals, and they want a ruling on their demands you are willing to accept Mr. Schlafly as the "final arbiter". But none seem willing to accept his judgment on article content or CP policy. Interesting, but not at all surprising. --₮K^/Talk! 10:28, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I see what you mean, but he's given an answer above and it must be annoying to have those 'new messages' boxes continually appearing. The only unanswered question is yours, about how many of your excellent graphs you need to add. Everything after that is people squabbling with each other.--CPalmer 10:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry. I'm learning as i go here. PeytonJ 10:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)

• Just so you don't turn into an Eternal Critic, Peyton! --₮K^/Talk! 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

No need to apologize - I think you were right. I like the look of your edits on ancient Egypt as well - we could certainly use more information on this interesting topic.--CPalmer 10:34, 11 December 2008 (EST)

TK, your liberal slur aside, I'll quote what Philip J. Rayment stated to you earlier: I have been arguing with the site owner over article content, not policy (for the most part at least). --BRichtigen 10:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

• BRichtigen, typical of liberals like you and PJR, you state something as a fact ("I have been arguing with the site owner over article content, not policy") then add, almost as a minor afterthought "for the most part at least". So which is it? Either he is arguing over content, or usurping his authority with the other (in his own judgment) arguments, admitted to. --₮K^/Talk! 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

That I might disagree with Andy on policy occasionally does not contradict that my arguments have been over article content. And disagreeing, as I'm sure you've done at times, does not amount to usurping authority. Philip J. Rayment 03:20, 12 December 2008 (EST)

This is very sad to see. I for one know what Bugler puts an enormous amount of effort improving this encyclopedia and dealing with vandals. Yet the response he gets is users trying to undermine him at every turn. I'm starting to see just how much effort it takes, now that people are vandalizing my user pages, sending me obscene emails, and trying to undermine me. You have my support at least, Bugler, in spite of any page-long rants to the contrary. - Rod Weathers 11:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Rod, this is the typical response of liberal editors whenever they are stopped from inserting their left-wing point of view into articles, or wasting our time arguing forever. One of the posters above is nothing but a nasty troll, someone who would rather argue than be productive, always trying to get their way by deceit. --₮K^/Talk! 11:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure about BRichtigen, but Philip J Rayment is no more liberal than you or I. It seems to me that LowKey got one thing right: whoever dares to question anything on this site is denounced as a "Liberal" in spite of all evidence to the contrary. --Ben _Talk 11:58, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Really, Ben? Do you also support gun control? Do you also think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Do you also spell Hell with a small "h"? All three are liberal positions, and I doubt you could name a conservative who supports gun control.

A fundamental approach taken by liberals from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama is to deny they are liberals. But their positions speak for themselves.--Aschlafly 12:18, 11 December 2008 (EST)

How many times do we have to provide the exact same disproofs? Some liberals at this encyclopedia seem bent on attacking anyone with any sort of authority merely because they're being stopped from injecting liberalism. - Rod Weathers 12:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Rod, part of their deceit is to argue anything and everything they cannot win with facts or logic. Of course, like the many documented deletions and edits of President-elect Obama's campaign website and transitional site as well prove, it is really the liberals who hide the truth. Jesus Christ told mankind the truth, and like Conservapedia was hated by those with closed minds. Liberals want to revise history to coincide with how they feel now, sad to say. It didn't used to be that way. Can anyone read the words of, the history of John F. Kennedy's administration, and picture him as the leader of the Democratic Party? Why the nuts at Kos and HuffPo would drive him out! --₮K^/Talk! 12:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)

And yet people stand aghast when we enforce NPOV and 90/10! - Rod Weathers 12:38, 11 December 2008 (EST)

All three are liberal positions, and I doubt you could name a conservative who supports gun control. How conservative - do you think - is Margaret Thatcher? While she was prime minister, the "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988" passed... --BRichtigen 12:56, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Andy, Philip isn't a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, socialist, secular humanist. He's a Fundamentalist, God created the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago Christian. While I have difficulties with aspects of his style, going around calling him a liberal is not right. Learn together 13:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

• Bill, a conservative can only observe a persons words and deeds. I have no doubt that Philip is indeed a Christian. In that I rejoice. He also takes political stands 180 degrees from any conservative I know, in Oz or the United States. As for his continued arguing:

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

--Thomas Paine

--₮K^/Talk! 13:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

IAGO:

Divinity of hell!
When devils will the blackest sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now: for whiles this honest fool
Plies Desdemona to repair his fortunes
And she for him pleads strongly to the Moor,
I'll pour this pestilence into his ear,
That she repeals him for her body's lust;
And by how much she strives to do him good,
She shall undo her credit with the Moor.
So will I turn her virtue into pitch,
And out of her own goodness make the net
That shall enmesh them all.

Othello - Act II, Scene III

With love, JohnZ 16:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Response to Mr. Schlafly:

I'll address your points one at a time.

Gun control: You've got me on this one. Gun control is an undeniably liberal view. Still, He seems to be conservtive on pretty much every other significant political issue.

Beauty: First of all, this isn't a question of political views. It's a question of philosophy. And yes, to a certain extent I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People have different tastes. personally i love the taste of coffee, but I know many people who don't. Some people think Mozart's music is the most beautiful, wile others may prefer Bach. The same is true for optical beauty: I might think a particular painting is beautiful, and yet someone else might disagree. That's what is meant by "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Does this make me liberal?

I agree with you that some beauty is objective inasmuch as mst of creation is beautiful to pretty much everybody, but that is because God (who is wonderful) made it.

Capitalization: This is merely a correct grammar. God never said, "Though shalt always capitalize Hell." In fact, the Bible wasn't even originally written in our alphabet. Proper nouns (such as hell) should be capitalized. However, I think Philip is probably aware of said grammar rule. I'm guessing he made an innoccent mistake.

While we can't necessarily take everybody at their word as to whethr they are liberal or conservative, I think that the evidence here points towards Philip's sincerity. --Ben _Talk 16:45, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for sticking up for me Ben. I'll reply to some points here because I expect you at least to take note of what I say.

Nobody has ever given me a satisfactory reason why gun control is inherently a "liberal" position. Mostly it seems to be a "liberal" position because in America it is the "liberals" who support gun control and the conservatives who oppose it. I accept that. However, that is not true elsewhere. In Australia and Britain, for example, tighter gun controls were brought in by conservative governments, and in my own experience here in Oz I know of very few conservatives who oppose gun control. So where I'm from, gun control is not a "liberal" position.

As far as beauty being in the eye of the beholder is concerned, Andy is incorrect and misleading in several ways. First, contrary to his claim, the subject was not God's creation in general, but autumn leaves in particular. I agree that God made a beautiful creation (and so beautiful that we still often consider it so despite it being a shadow of its former glory). However, what different people consider beautiful does vary, as you yourself have pointed out, and I was disputing the autumn leaves specifically because the colour of autumn leaves is due to their deterioration, rather than the way they were designed. I did quote the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but when Andy challenged me on it, I did have to admit that a popular saying is not a basis for arguing facts. In that respect, his claim that I am "adamant that ... beauty ... is in the eye's the beholder" is simply wrong, because I did not continue to maintain that claim. However, in trying to dispute my comments, Andy claimed that the saying was invented by atheists, and provided a source, which didn't claim that. I pointed this out, but he simply dismissed me as wrong.

As far as capitalisation of "Hell" is concerned, you are essentially correct that it was innocent mistake. Andy did not explain what he was referring to, and I initially denied that I had spelt it with a lower-case "h", because I checked the article edit and I had not done so. Subsequently I realised that I had use lower-case "h"s in a talk-page comment. But this was not done deliberately, and therefore, as you pointed out, does not mean that I'm a "liberal". However, I was puzzled as to why I had used a lower-case "h", as I'm quite particular about such things (even always using a capital letter for pronouns referring to God, for example, which is not so in vogue these days). So I checked to see what the Bible said, and found that the Bible uses a lower-case "h"! (This may be why subconsciously I did so also.) I noticed that someone else has mentioned this point on this page also; I'll respond to that before long. So Andy is simply wrong to claim that spelling it with a lower-case "h" is "liberal" when the Bible uses it that way also!

Most of the time, Andy has avoided directly calling me a "liberal", but on the Obama talk page, he effectively did just that, but refused to apologise or even admit to it. Notice also (in his post below, for example) how he often engages in an ad hominem argument rather than directly addressing the points. He even goes as far as to implicitly criticise according to what he thinks someone will believe ("such as other government control"), rather than sticking to what they have actually made clear.

Philip J. Rayment 04:02, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Ben, I appreciate your response, and you agree that support of gun control is a liberal position. That's what I said in connection with Philip, and he has repeatedly responded by insisting that he's not a liberal. I didn't say he was a liberal, but that he believed in a liberal position. And, by the way, there is a high correlation of beliefs in other liberal positions -- such as other government control -- once one believes in gun control.

On beauty, the subject was God's creation and Philip was adamant that its beauty (specifically autumn foliage) is in the eye's the beholder. It isn't; it's objectively beautiful, and it is a liberal/atheistic position to deny it.

On "Hell", it's not just a matter of grammar, but an issue of belief. Watch how atheists insist on not capitalizing "God".--Aschlafly 18:06, 11 December 2008 (EST)

To summarize my points:

1. Margaret Thatcher doesn't become less conservative for not opposing gun control in Britain
2. Not every beauty can be absolute: otherwise, the fashion industry would be out of business
3. The Holy See doesn't capitalize Hell on its English language publications...

--BRichtigen 18:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)

BRichtigen, you're treading on thin ice with repeated denial of simple truth and arguing. Beauty is absolute. It is ordained by God. And Margaret Thatcher is less conservative due to not opposing gun control. This seems fairly obvious: liberal positions = more liberal, conservative positions = more conservative. - Rod Weathers 18:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Exactly right, Rod. As to beauty, more people agree that autumn foliage is beautiful than agree that 2+2=4. If you agree the latter is absolute, so is the former. As to Thatcher, her liberal views on gun control (if true) does make her less conservative, obviously, and does lead to other liberal views (as on health care in Thatcher's case).--aschlafly 18:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Andy, as has been pointed out above, people have different tastes in music and in art. I personally find the Mona Lisa a dull painting, but many disagree. I'm not denying that there may be an absolute beauty that everyone agrees is beautiful but your example of autumn foliage does not ring true. 2+2=4 is absolute, and noone can disagree with it. Yet I for one do not find autumn foliage particularly beautiful, I much prefer a summers day ("shall I compare thee...") as do others prefer the ocean or their pet dog. Bolly 18:57, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Denial of this point has to end here. We can't spend all week responding to the exact same point time and time again. There is no relativism when it comes to beauty, nor when it comes to truth. Atheists seek to deny beauty because they deny the God who created it. - Rod Weathers 19:07, 11 December 2008 (EST)

• Rod! You're spilling all the medicine! No matter what we do, we cannot revive everyone's ability to think logically. ;-) --₮K^/Talk! 19:11, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I don't deny beauty! And I'm going on holidays now anyway so I can't respond after this. But I just said, I find a sunny day with a light breeze one of the most beautiful things imaginable. I love it. Autumn foliage, eh, it does nothing for me. It's all relative. And I don't 'deny' God, I was an Anglican for a while, but it didn't work. So I just don't believe. Bolly 19:14, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Bolly, you're not fooling anyone. Absolute morality probably didn't work for you, and perhaps absolute truth and beauty don't either. Define life however you like. It doesn't change the underlying truth and beauty.--aschlafly 19:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)

aschlafly, do you happen to like the durian? Some people can't stand the smell or taste of the fruit while others love it. How about brussels sprouts? Personally, I'm not a big fan of that vegetable. Would my denial that durians and brussels sprouts taste good to me be a typically liberal or conservative position? How about Jackson Pollock's or Andy Warhol's work? Some thought much of their work was trash. Others loved it. Is someone who finds beauty in Andy Warhol's 'Campbell's Soup' images a conservative or liberal?--Argon 21:23, 11 December 2008 (EST)

unindent) Philip, this is an American project, and we use American English here. Our usage of political terms such as Conservative and Liberal is therefore from the U.S. perspective. The conflict between advocates of "gun rights" and "gun control", as described editorially here and in articles, is therefore presented in terms of the American political spectrum. It is chiefly US conservatives who support rights such as owning pistols and rifles, carrying them while going about one's lawful business, and concealed carry. Conservatives believe in the individual citizen's right to protect himself from criminals (as well as to safeguard against government tyranny). You would have to ask American liberals why they don't believe in the same things American conservatives do. Having done that, you'd be in a better position to help us write about the dispute between 'rights' vs. 'control'.

Liberals use many counter-factual arguments to bolster their desire to disarm the populace. First, they introduce a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment; they give no reason for the change but pretend that it "always meant" what they want to change it to. Or, contradicting their own point (see liberal hypocrisy), they assert that the Supreme Court has the right to "re-interpret" the Constitution. So you needn't wonder any more why we conservatives call 'gun control' a liberal position. (1) It is a position taken by liberals. (2) It is supported using liberal arguing techniques.

I could go on, and note how liberals twist words and statistics further, but I assume you are aware of these things. Surely you know the saying, "The only function of a gun is to kill people." Yet you also surely are aware of the fact that most policemen never fire their service revolver (at a person) during their entire law enforcement career, let alone kill him. In New York City alone, countless arrests are made every day with no fanfare by police officers; it is only the rare cases (typically involving a suspect resisting arrest) in which a policeman uses his gun to kill someone. The liberals ignore and/or dismiss the millions of times per year when a law-abiding citizen defends himself from a criminal by threatening to use a gun, or merely displaying it or mentioning it. What is its function then? Who gets killed when a gun is used in self-defense, and the criminal decides to run away (unshot)?

There is a conservative-liberal divide in the United States on the gun ownership issue. Conservatives favor allowing law-abiding citizens to own, possess, and use guns for self-defense. Liberals want only the government and police to have guns. These desires (or positions) stem from their ideological standpoints. It doesn't matter - here - what words like "Conservatives" and "Liberals" mean in Australia. The pro-gun position is conservative and the anti-gun position is liberal in the U.S., and you are welcome to support either position or to make up one of your own. What you cannot get away with doing is to support the liberal position and then deny that it is liberal. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:12, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Ed, the requirement for American spelling was lifted a long time ago. I realise that you use the term "liberal" from an American perspective, which is why I frequently put it in quotes, because here in Oz "liberal" has other connotations. But even if I grant you the rest of your argument, what you are trying to do is to impose American views on this Aussie. It may be okay to say that an American who supports gun control has a "liberal" view, but it is entirely inappropriate to apply that criterion to an Australian. I am not an American, so to apply American standards to me is simply wrong. When I'm being called a "liberal", or I'm being told that I hold "liberal ideas", these things are not being said simply to explain my views to Americans, but to denigrate or dismiss me or my views; essentially, it's name-calling. I am not denying that my views on gun control are closer to American liberals than American conservatives, but that doesn't mean that I can have my views dismissed simply by labelling them "liberal". Philip J. Rayment 09:55, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not trying to impose any views on you or label you. I have merely said that in America it is liberals who push gun control. If Australian Conservatives and Australian Liberals are measured on a different political spectrum, that is unrelated to what I was saying. You are free to endorse or oppose American liberal ideas. If you wish to say that your ideas on gun ownership lean more toward our liberals than our conservatives, that helps.

We have a big tent here. No one has to agree with some top 10 list of conservative positions to contribute. I'm fascinated by the different reasons conservatives and liberals give for their positions, especially when I can see how these reasons are connected to their respective ideologies. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:05, 12 December 2008 (EST)

How can someone say beauty is an absolute because lots of people agree about something being beautiful? Is the meaning of absolute misunderstood or something? If something is an absolute, the opinion of lots of people is completely irrelevant, it's simply true. If the beauty of autumn foliage was dependent on lots of people finding it beautiful, then it wouldn't be an absolute. So Andy seemingly undermines his own argument. Just my two cents. JHanson 14:31, 12 December 2008 (EST)

This absurd objection has been raised and felled countless times. Denying God-endowed absolute beauty is a liberal and atheistic position. Simple. A warning to all: further pointless repetition of the same liberal objection will be met with a more severe response. We do not have all day to deal with endless liberal arguments. - Rod Weathers 14:34, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I'm pretty sure we're arguing about different things here and that's beauty versus preference. Aschlafly and others aren't saying it's liberal to appreciate certain aspects of beauty (Summer vs. Autumn) more than others. I think their stance is that beauty is absolute in the sense that everything that God has created is perfect and beautiful. The beauty of all His Creation is irrespective of whether people appreciate it or not. The beauty of the Autumn leaves does not depend of whether you or I find it so. It's beautiful because God created it and that's the absolute nature (I think) they're speaking of. Now, of course, that doesn't mean it's wrong for people to find certain aspects of His Creation most appealing to them individually. But that's just personal preference, not the definition of beauty.--SJames 15:36, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Response

TK’s opinion about the complaints above.

Vows mean nothing to liberals as we all know, and is confirmed for those who didn't by the twisted and torturous "logic" employed here, only to defame CP, Andy Schlafly and those of us who defend it publicly, in as humiliatingly a way as possible. These liberal trolls, these saboteurs, have such hate and venom in their hearts, I fear there are no depths to which they will refuse to sink! Only creatures without God, without redemption, could find anything wrong with the examples given.

See also

• Similar complaints from Sysop JessicaT