From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OK, it's a start, but my examples are silly. OK, Bettys' gonna be pissed, but anyway. I would prefer real world, footnoted examples of various kinds of deceit to be used. And also, more forms of deceit described. Thanks for any and all help making this article really good.

For additional, possibly useful info, see Essay:On Bias.--PalMD-yada yada 22:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Dunno about this: Karajou added this to the thread What is Conservapedias stance on the war?[2], mentioning 37 of his shipmates on the USS Stark. He doesn't mention the USS Stark on his user page but nearly everywhere else he served. It was then deleted by Aschlafly. Perhaps Karajou was fibbing and thought that would make his argument more right. Perhaps Aschlafly hurredly deleted that bit of Consrvative deceit so no liberals could find it. A bit deceitful in itself. Of course Karajou may have made an innocent slip-up and confused shipmates with fellow servicemen. Perhaps he didn't wan't to question the Boss's decision for fear of being ostracized. WhatIsG0ing0n 09:03, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Ah yes, "deceit by resume inflation"? "deceit of false credentials"? I do want to try to stay away from two types of direct cites here, by the way (just me, I can be overuled by a majority of one, of course) - stuff that is too political, and stuff direct from CP. We are bound to end up with something at least a bit political, but I want to avoid a blatantly partisan article, like, you know, the one at CP. It's going to be hard to do "deceit by misquotation" and avoid the YEC's but I am gonna try. humanbe in 12:45, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
It doesn't look to me like Andy intentionally removed the Karajou comment -- he reverted 8 comments, starting from this one. I suppose it's possible he was aiming for the Karajou one and was crafty enough to hide it amongst others. --jtltalk 14:13, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Andy crafty? I doubt it, he'll probably just blame it on liberals since they're so evil. Jrssr5 20:08, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
I was accused of these crimes by the cp higher ups. Interesting.--PalMD-yada yada 12:56, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Ah yes, I remember. Your deceit was actually one of omission - as i recall you never mentioned your little, um, goat problem. humanbe in 13:11, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I was kinda thinking of this classic line at CP:

Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong.[1] Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong.[2]
  1. For example, conservatives teach that "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." [1]
  2. See, e.g., Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (the Supreme Court ordering removal of the Ten Commandments from display in public schools).

I thought an illustration that what they preach and what they practice differs. Has to be done by sysops though. The above example might not be the best one, even if it was infact intentional. WhatIsG0ing0n 12:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

That might make a nice closer for the article. I steal it now. humanbe in 13:11, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Would beefing up on 'roids count as deceit? Not political, but still dishonest. At least, when, the rules say you aren't supposed to. GodlessLiberal 17:02, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Heh, I edited the article for deceit as a joke to read "Conservatives try to end deceit at all costs, while liberals try to spread it through society." They seem to like that there, but it now reads, "Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives. [4] " Of course, the reference they used originally went back to "Liberal" under conservapedia. The one they have now is completely irrelevant. What kind of dumbass thinks that a "majority" of liberals don't think deceit is wrong? — Unsigned, by: Pat1089 / talk / contribs

Is that a rhetorical question?--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 18:47, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Fall down's latest sock[edit]

Honestly, I wouldn't have reverted the edit to this article by Fall Down's most recent sock. If interpreted with the usual RW snark, his comment fits reasonably well with the tone of the rest of the article. OneForLogic 17:44, 1 January 2009 (EST)

1. A diff link is more useful since it shows what you are talking about. 2. It ain't that funny. RWW does a better job of calling us on our shit, I think, than "Fall Down" or whoever they might be today. And how do you know that was FD? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:03, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Deceit is[edit]

An unexpected seven-bar phrase WalkerWalkerWalker 06:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What about liberal deceit?[edit]

Isn't that one of the things our friends at Conservaperdia like to bitch about? Where have the good old days gone where we would make fun of Conservapedia at every opportunity? Pizzameister (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can anything[edit]

in this article be trusted? --Scherben (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Troll might've made a stopped clock comment on accident, don't revert?[edit]

The troll probably read literally the first sentence in this source and thought that due to his name being "Bald Liar" that it was a reputable source saying people should trust him. Obviously this is not even wrong, they might've accidentally contributed a link of interest here. I didn't get the full PDF of it so this is based on the abstract, looked up the author and she looks legit. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)