Sketchiness on Wikipedia

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I'm sure you do have a reasons, never the less you are incorrect. They are democrats and support and vote for a party with stated goals and policies, none of which make them even remotely close to communists.

Wanting the entire health care establishment of the USA owned and controlled by the government doesn't make them "even remotely clsoe to communists"? :eek:

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Wanting the entire health care establishment of the USA owned and controlled by the government doesn't make them "even remotely clsoe to communists"? :eek:

Thats right. If they were communists they would support the following: -

Revolution
Institution of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
The steady abolition of the state
A stateless, classless collection of communes.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I think thats where you go wrong. The fetus is not an individual/independant life form. Obviously, pro-lifers disagree with that statement. Also, you again make the mistake of assuming that I am pro-life.

I was merely pointing out the obsurdity of human rights for an entity that has not attained independant life status. You sound pro-life when you make statements like: "But we're not discussing her body, we're discussing the body of the child." as if the body of the "child" were independant of the mother. When in fact it more closely resembles a parasite, in fetal stages.

The flaw in the pro-lifers stand is how an unborn fetus has rights., in spite of their religion making a big deal about the "Breath of Life" in Genesis...... And then after birth it deserves no civil rights, it should then be a slave to religion and cannon fodder for every deliberate crime against humanity)

(I am in limbo on abortion, but lean toward pro-choice. Rare but legal, I say)

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel If it were, there wouldnt be any issue about liberating the fetus early. It could go on about its business of scavenging for food if the mother rejected it. Quote by: Morgan Can a newborn baby "scavenge for food on its own"? Obviously not. A child isn't really independent until they're at least 6. Is that the age at which you think abortion should be illegal?

IT CANT EVEN BREATHE, let alone scavenge food! It will die instantly if removed from its host. I was pointing out how a fetus is not a person yet. More of a polywog incubating. After it takes a breath we can discuss its rights.

A piece of sheet metal is not a car. A fetus is not a person.

What if a bird drops weed seeds onto a plowed field? Should the farmer have a right to pull those seedlings before they fully develope? Same goes for rape and incest victims. They should not be forced, by law, to bear an evil seed to fruition.

[McAiden]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Thanks for illustrating my point about liberals being defined by people who dislike them. Your definition of liberals is irrelevant as it is tainted by extreme bias.

Scribbler, slow down, calm down. I am not guilty of "extreme bias" where liberals are concerned. Being an independent what I see is a difference in "liberal" and "Democrat."
I am growing weary of liberals, they don't appear to be honest in what they say. Actually, I support a woman's right to abortion, and am culturally liberal, have many liberal friends. My post is an opinion, the way I see liberals now, though I certainly did not in past decades.

My opinion is not irrelevant whatever its content.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: McAiden Scribbler, slow down, calm down. I am not guilty of "extreme bias" where liberals are concerned. Being an independent what I see is a difference in "liberal" and "Democrat." I am growing weary of liberals, they don't appear to be honest in what they say. Actually, I support a woman's right to abortion, and am culturally liberal, have many liberal friends. My post is an opinion, the way I see liberals now, though I certainly did not in past decades. My opinion is not irrelevant whatever its content.

Ordinarily I wouldn't respond to this duplicitous garbage, but the fact that you state everything in your post as factual, without any use of words like "In my opinion" or "I believe" irritates me.
Your own words to describe "liberals" (emphasis mine):

Liberals are very spoiled children of the 1960's who made a decision, based primarily on the support of their college instructors, to protest just about everything and every way America lived They don't believe there's a God, that we just live and die, gooone. They don't believe The Church is necessary, thank you, they have all the answers: They don't, honestly, think a "family" is necessary. They think women should dress any way they please, and use this sexiness to intimate men. Stand near one and you may get a surgery-made chest in your face, along with surgery-made face, mid-drift, belly and but. They are not on the side of America, even though America has grown, changed. To say they want "liberty" is ridiculous, they want free stuff because most have lived off their parents for too long - they may currently wish for retirement funds.

And you even know all about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is written by people who want to prove a point by sending others there for information.

So let's recap, Liberals are:
Spoiled children, atheists, anti-family, greedy, irresponsible traitors. And your assessment of women's sexuality is just bizarre.
Not only that, you never qualified any of your statements, which simply means you are telling me ALL liberals are these things.

But you don't consider any of this to be extremely biased. This is why your opinion is irrelevant. It paints an entire, and HUGE group of Americans with the same broad brush, which at the very least is intellectually dishonest and is simply parroting right wing attempts to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

And I am quite calm, thank you.

[McAiden]

Nevertheless, what I've said about liberals is true. I know by experience, that's what makes it true to me. What I said has been my experience. I went to college with liberals, babyboomers, though I'm not one, I fought for some of the things they fought for. After while I turned against liberals because their propensity for drugs. Using drugs, selling drugs. Why should anyone listen to anyone while they are on drugs?

I saw a TV show sometime in late 1980s where a (older of course) student who protested in Tiannaman (mispelled, sure) Square in China, along with an SDS student of the 1960s. Both made some similar statement as: "What can I say, I was a kid -- I was crazy." The Chinese student admitted that at some point the sit-in students began to become addicted to the attention, the power, gained rather than the original intent of the protest.

These same liberals seem to have become the very thing they hate. Selfish, greedy, power-hungry people who are dependent on groups.

Actually, I feel the same about extreme right-wing conservatives. I also think the US is a'changing. The extreme of liberal and conservative has, probably, not much place today.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: McAiden Nevertheless, what I've said about liberals is true. I know by experience, that's what makes it true to me. What I said has been my experience. I went to college with liberals, babyboomers, though I'm not one, I fought for some of the things they fought for. After while I turned against liberals because their propensity for drugs. Using drugs, selling drugs. Why should anyone listen to anyone while they are on drugs?

You're doing it again. You just don't see the mistake you make. Because you knew some "liberals" in college means you know ALL of them (and a lot, no doubt, are liberals only because you think they are).
So, in addition to all the things you accused "liberals" of yesterday, we not have them as an entire group of druggies.
But since you hung around with a few heads in college you must be an expert.

To be taken seriously one must base their opinions on at least a LITTLE fact, and your blanket statements prove you base your opinions on nothing factual. Actually, you sound as if your opinions are solely based on somebody ELSE'S opinions.

You DO know what a strawman argument is, right? Accuse ALL "liberals" of being on drugs and then saying we shouldn't listen to them because they are on drugs.

These same liberals seem to have become the very thing they hate. Selfish, greedy, power-hungry people who are dependent on groups.

That is such ignorant BS it's unworthy of comment. At this point I can't tell if you are a follower of Limbaugh or Dr. Laura.

Actually, I feel the same about extreme right-wing conservatives.

Funny, you keep THAT part well hidden.

I also think the US is a'changing.

Nice paraphrasing of Bob Dylan, you old liberal hippie you.

The extreme of liberal and conservative has, probably, not much place today.

So, in spite of the FACT that conservatives have most of the control today, you rail on against the "liberals" while saying NOTHING about the right wing currently in power.
Thanks so much for making my point.

[bishop]

heh.... gotta love people who go on their college experiences and act like that's the be-all-end-all when it comes to facts, or defining the vague term "liberal"..

pretty hilarious actually. i just hope he was joking.

[McAiden]

Scribbler and Bishop:

Yes, my posts are rather harsh and I do apologize. I can't currently argue because you are quite right, I have been biased, though not against you but the liberals of the 1960s who are just about 60 now. But, you two (at least) appear to be young college age people and to be as much independent as anyone else. Knowing close to nothing about how people think who are, say, in their 20's and attending college, maybe I can only say that just during the past two months my view of liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans is changing as I don't know what to make of the worsening Middle East wars.

In retrospect I don't think Bush, Sr. should have started the Gulf War. That was new for this country and I think started a change in the way other countries see us. Neither do I think George W. should stubbornly refuse to get rid of the idiot Rumsfeld. As for "shock-and-awe, I was horrified, but, I have to admit it has taken awhile to get my two sides together.

It's rather frightening to see Americans who at least seem to be on the side of those who are our enemies, constantly discussing what our soldiers do to our enemies, yet not saying much about what they (Hezbollah, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents) have said openly they plan to do to our country.
I don't understand this.

Right now I am a little worried about Fidel Castro's absence, especially when his brother Raul said Cuba was now being run by the Communist. Doesn't that mean North Korea. Rather close.

So, forgive and forget? Now, what about Wikipedia? Anybody can write about whatever they wish on this web site?

[bishop]

actually, i think scribs is close to the age group you're referring to, give or take 20 years. heh..

and, i'm approaching the end of my 20's, so no hippie roots here.

Quote by: mcaiden I can only say that just during the past two months my view of liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans is changing as I don't know what to make of the worsening Middle East wars.

myself, i don't even know how to define or characterize what, exactly makes someone a liberal, conservative, democrat or a republican. the meanings of these words has definitely dissolved over the years. all i know/believe is that our country isn't headed in the right direction, and the decisions made by the current president (and congressional majority) have hurt our future prospects.

Quote by: mcaiden It's rather frightening to see Americans who at least seem to be on the side of those who are our enemies, constantly discussing what our soldiers do to our enemies, yet not saying much about what they (Hezbollah, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents) have said openly they plan to do to our country.

i wouldn't mistake focusing criticism on our policies as implicit support for our enemies... you'll be extremely hard-pressed to find a single member on this site who has ever suggested that what these groups do is justified, or that they support those actions. the problem is that there are many ignorant saps out there who believe that we are saints that can do no wrong - and these people ought to be force fed the ugly truth because they would rather ignore it and view the world through rose-colored glasses. plus, for those who opposed actions like bush jr.'s war in iraq, seeing atrocities committed by u.s. troops only serves to piss them off even more.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: McAiden Scribbler and Bishop: Yes, my posts are rather harsh and I do apologize. I can't currently argue because you are quite right, I have been biased, though not against you but the liberals of the 1960s who are just about 60 now. But, you two (at least) appear to be young college age people and to be as much independent as anyone else.

Well, I suppose I should take that as a compliment. I'm in my mid-50's and I WAS a liberal in the 60's. I'm closer to what is currently called a "Goldwater conservative" these days but I'm also a Libertarian which means I differ from the current crop of "conservatives" by a mile in social issues. I also differ with the current "conservatives" in that I don't believe in spending money I don't have and starting wars we are incapable of winning with countries which were never a threat to us.
The insane spending of the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress is a given and I can't see ANYONE supporting this, but the war, as I see it (reduced to its basic elements for clarity) is:

The result of a terrorist attack on our soil by Saudis from an organization headed by a Saudi.

The attack provoked a retaliatory attack (which at the time I completely supported) on Afghanistan, a country headed by a group (Taliban) which we SUPPORTED just a couple of years before. After PARTIALLY taking out the Taliban (no big loss) Bush declared the still-free Bin Laden to be "no big deal" and almost immediately invades ANOTHER country whose dictator we had dealt with prior to the FIRST war with it. This country, almost utterly without offensive capabilities due to 10 years of our presense IN Iraq is labeled by the Bush administration a threat to the US even though it couldn't even win a war with the country next door. We take out the dictator and by doing so lay the groundwork for an ongoing civil war between parties which hate each others guts.
This, and an almost endless list of other failures, is what makes me anti Bush administration, which is quite different from being anti-American.

Knowing close to nothing about how people think who are, say, in their 20's and attending college, maybe I can only say that just during the past two months my view of liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans is changing as I don't know what to make of the worsening Middle East wars.

Since this entire planet seems to be descending into utter madness by the day, I feel it safe to say MOST of us don't know what the f**k is going on. You are not alone.

In retrospect I don't think Bush, Sr. should have started the Gulf War. That was new for this country and I think started a change in the way other countries see us. Neither do I think George W. should stubbornly refuse to get rid of the idiot Rumsfeld. As for "shock-and-awe, I was horrified, but, I have to admit it has taken awhile to get my two sides together.

IMO, Rumsfeld is a stubborn, incompetant civilian bureaucrat who was given WAY too much power over our military and Bush is a stubborn, incompetant civilian idiot for not seeing how dangerous Rumsfeld's policies were and not firing him 3 years ago at least.

It's rather frightening to see Americans who at least seem to be on the side of those who are our enemies, constantly discussing what our soldiers do to our enemies, yet not saying much about what they (Hezbollah, Taliban, Iraqi insurgents) have said openly they plan to do to our country. I don't understand this.

It's simple. When the Taliban were brutalizing the Afghan people and Saddam Hussein was brutalizing innocent Iraqis and the terrorists were slaughtering innocent civilians we were utterly horrified and disgusted by these actions. This is why many of us find it equally outrageous to think OUR people are doing the SAME thing and harming innocent civilians. We can't say we are better than those we emulate and murdering civilians is reprehensible. If we don't speak out about THAT we are giving our implicit permission to allow some members of our military to be as bad as the abovementioned murderers.
And we DO talk about what those people say against us, but talk is cheap and as long as we are actually killing people while they TALK about killing us our actions are higher in importance.

Right now I am a little worried about Fidel Castro's absence, especially when his brother Raul said Cuba was now being run by the Communist. Doesn't that mean North Korea. Rather close.

Cuba IS a communist country and always was under Castro, with the possible exception of the first year or so. As far as I know Cuba is not influenced by N. Korea. It USED to be the Soviets backing Castro up but NK is run by a cult of personality (Kim's) and I seriously doubt Kim's xenophobic insanity could ever fit in with Castro's way of doing things.

So, forgive and forget? Now, what about Wikipedia? Anybody can write about whatever they wish on this web site?

Nothing to forgive. Things have gotten a LOT testier in this forum in the past.

Yes, Wikipedia is pretty much like that, with the exception of the peer review angle. You can post almost anything but I have the right to challenge it and if it gets TOO weird they can pull the entry entirely.
I'm mostly upset about recent developments at Wikipedia because I find it a good source of information, or at least a good starting-off point when researching things.

[Radioactive Man]

For what it's worth, the Wiki definition has reverted to its original form.

So much for that stab at accuracy...