From InfoAnarchy
Jump to: navigation, search

I know i'm fighting the tide here, but even after my edit i still feel like this entry is unnecessarily inflammatory. Anyway, i took out the following because i can't for the life of me figure out what it was supposed to mean:

, taken from the post-slavery southerners even though much of the anti-slavery movement was religious. Also, many religious conservatives have a narrow view of morality and politics which makes them powerful at the ballot on some issues but this often frieghten away centrists.

-- Amw

Its taken in contrast to the opposing liberal idea:

Sometimes these ideas are so new and different that they can shock conservatives who look at these changes as dangerous.

This being that Conservatives have a fairly stable moral code whereas Liberals are more known for progressive, changing ideas about social structure. I was trying to take a historical tack with the whole slavery thing (which was also liberal v conservative) but I think I tried to fit too much into one paragraph - something I'm constantly editing other people's work for. D'oh. Webfork

Hey waitasec: often used (incorrectly) to refer to the political "right" ... does that mean its Democrat vs. Republican? My bad again, apparently. <code>:/</code> Webfork

What's Pro-Life? Are liberals Anti-Life? -- dpi

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the stupidest terms ever bandied about by the media. Why not just "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"? It's got nothing to do with "life" - everyone agrees that fetuses are "alive". The key question is at what point does the life of a fetus actually become intrinsically worth anything and/or more important than the life of its host. I suspect "pro-life" is just a propaganda term created by anti-abortionists intended to garner sympathy amongst those who don't think the issue through. -- Amw
Oh, it's about abortion... didn't knew. I suspect the same on the propaganda/marketing views. It's changed. -- dpi
Most "pro-choice" people would object to being called "pro-abortion" though. I don't think anyone in their right mind is pro-abortion. Nobody *wants* an abortion to start off with. crtn

This topic is incredibly biased. I'm not sure how this is a good source of information. Look at the difference between the liberal and conservative page. (Note: I did fix the conservative page) They do not give many facts about the history or beliefs of either movement, but rather hold up liberal us "right" and "smart" and conservative as "wrong" and "stupid". You could at least make an attempt to write neutrally instead of inserting editorial nonsense. Mitler 03:05, 5 Aug 2005 (GMT)

First: haven't you been on a wiki before? Could you please not just cut and responses (this exact response is over on Talk:Liberal)?
Second: given that you just got here, its probably not clear but this wiki and the liberal/conservative topic has been dead for probably over a year now. Still, making drastic changes on Flame-worthy wiki topics isn't really welcome because there isn't anyone to respond. I welcome more contributors but if all you're here for is the conservative-liberal thing, don't waste your time. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article out there somewhere you can go nuts on.
That said, yes, this Web site has contributors who were Liberals. They are/were biased. I appreciate your sentiment that we should obey facts rather than conjecture or opinion but that's clearly not a personal philosophy:
"American conservatives are more originalist in their interpretation of the Constitution and believe that traditional morality is important in decision making."
I'm not suggesting your changes are wrong, merely that they are no different in terms of use of "fact." Its purely an excersize in softer language versus the previous:
"Conservatives fear the unknown potential of change as a threat to their future. The result is that much of what is often considered progress by others, gets shunned by a Conservative."
As such, I don't see how this is an improvement on the entry. I think attacks on both stances are absolutely relevant and should not be removed. You may instead say "liberals are critisized for..." or "conservatives are critisized for...". It is still a fact after all that people have opinions. Cutting those is not therefore useful or enlightening towards the conservative/liberal division. I can go to any Liberal web site with PR types that say how great liberals are or any Conservative site that says how great conservatism is. That does not approach truth.
Lastly, and yes this is nitpicking - but it really is AFFECT and not EFFECT. Feel free to look it up. - Webfork