Recap - The Third Post

Oh, Conservapedia. 3/20/09

That's right, it's Friday again. And you know what that means:

Conservapedia Friday!

Today's Conservapedia page is their article on Liberals, in which they fairly and without bias enumerate basic liberal viewpoints and beliefs.

Oh, wait, wrong site. This is where they unabashedly spout propoganda that, while sometimes is not a complete lie in a roundabout way, is pretty dumb.

They begin the article with their definition:

"A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing."

Really, biblical standards? I'm pretty sure a standard is something universally accepted, and someone's interpretation of what the Bible teaches is completely dependent on their worldview, not the other way around. I also like how they dismiss the whole of liberal beliefs as narcissim, like their beliefs are the only ones with any merit (which is actually pretty typical)

The article then goes on to list some bullet pointed facts about liberal beliefs. The thing about the list is that while a lot of their points are clearly worded to make you think they're stupid or just plain evil, some really are just simple facts. It's like they expect you to think these things are just dumb. Some of the simple ones include:

• Support for gun control
• Support of labor unions
• Abolition of the death penalty
• Environmentalism

To Conservapedia, these aren't only silly and wrong, they're evil, and probably anti-America. But to non-insane people, these are acceptable beliefs. For some, they're actually pretty important.

And then the article says some other things, that have a bit more than a hint of bias:

• Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right

I think it's really more about the fact that rights aren't supposed to be taken away when it becomes inconvenient or bothersome to some people. But, ok.

• The denial of inherent gender differences

I don't think that liberals think that men and women are the same. In fact, they're quite different. It's pretty obvious too. Especially when you're naked. But the point is that it's generally wrong for the law to make distinctions, especially in the form of double-standards, based on matters of gender. It's the exact same thing as having the law applied differently to people of different races. Not many people support that anymore

• A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended

First of all, we absolutely do not know all the intentions of the dozens of people who could be considered the founders of this country and the writers of the Constitution. Besides, even if we did, it would be impossible to apply 18th century positions to 21 century positions. Besides, the Constituion is almost entirely procedural and structural guidelines for a reason: Constitutions that contain a lot of laws fail. If laws become outdated and made obsolete or recognized to be denying basic rights, they need to be changed. If they're in the Constitution, it's pretty damn hard to change them. And that's when people get together for a little revolution, and who wants that? (Revolutionaries want that.)

The article goes on to say this confusing little point:

• Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).

First of all, Richard Dawkins was professor. Even if he didn't actually hold the title (and he did), that's what people who teach at colleges are generally called. As for Barack Obama, I've never once heard him referred to as a professor, even though he did teach at the University of Chicago, classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004

• Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex

Notice the subtle quotes they put on education, as if everyone considers the concept laughable. In reality, it's pretty rational to teach teens how to keep sex safe, when they're going to be doing it regardless. There are plenty examples of high profile cases of abstinence-only education failing, but I'm not going to get petty.

I'm talking about Bristol Palin.

Well, and that ends this week's Conservapedia Fridays

Have a good weekend, and watch out for idiots