Talk:Liberals/Archive 1

Enough with the revert wars, part 2

Since y'all couldn't go more than a week with this unprotected, I reverted to that state and reprotected. Knock yourselves out bitching about the current version. Personally, I don't care, so you'll have to get some other admin to unprotect after you have hashed out what you want it to look like. I suggest making a mockup in your personal userspace, and proposing it here. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Bananas in Pajamas don’t reach a sensible conclusion when discussing their orientation moving down stairs. Bananas are generally yellow though move to become red. The ground outside is yellow. The applied mathematics of a rolling rabbit results from secret communications with my dentist.

This is the only sensible thing I can put now in this stupid fucking flamewar perpetrated by one I.P. address that is constantly getting away shit free with his actions. What else am I supposed to say? Article good put in please? I give up. Weri long wang 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the other guy with the IP. I think Weri Long Wang's PC bullshit should be left out of Uncyclopedia. The IP guy's edits were actually funny. - TriLowe -

Political correctness? What part of “my” version of the article “politically correct”? I know that people from Texas and New Jersey hate political correctness, but it is ridiculous to accuse me of being PC; believe me I aint. Weri long wang 21:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don’t worry; I’m going to keep my UK-centric, communist, politically correct, blah, blah, blah from Uncyclopedia. You do what you want with this stupid article. Knock yerselves out (preferably with a baseball bat)Weri long wang 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Bitching

This article is still practically identical in message to American Liberals. A 'true' article about general Liberals should talk about liberals from all over the world, not just focus on Clinton. Something needs to be done. -x

Some arse keeps screwing up this page, (I think :( ) I don't know how to reverse edits. Mr. Briggs

Ok...let me look at the history, to see if this is so. -- SonicChao ^Babbel!_Contribs 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see too much out of the ordinary, but, alas, if you think a noob, or an anonymous IP screwed it up...click "history" click the timestamp before the vandalizm accoured, it will give you a page, press edit, and click "Save Page." But, usually someone who browses Recent Changes will fix it. Oh, and could you please sign quotes with "~~~~" instead of writing your name? -- SonicChao ^Babbel!_Contribs 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was 24.163.65.156 and he has been reported to the ban patrol. --Sbluen 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some one (conservative no doubt >.<) keeps deleting most of the article leaving only conservative humour. Mighty Draco 21:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Mighty_Draco

Enough with the revert wars.

Now, ALL of you who were involved, bitch amongst yourselves about which version is best. I'll revert it to that version and unprotect. And do it nicely, or you may find yourself in Banland. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

I like the article as it stands (although I prefer the Bill Clinton is Satan picture) Mighty Draco 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[copied from my talk page –H.]

I'm hoping that by putting this stuff here I can get some kind of response: I would like to go back to my most recent version of the article. I believe it is based more on humor and irony than on political views (which the present one undoubtedly is). Here are my reasons for wanting to revert:

• The caption to the Clinton picture which says one of the liberal ideals is “killing babies” is NOT FUNNY and is definitely a facetious comment based on extreme political views which when judged impartially; are wrong. Plus it breaks the chain of words in the caption that make up the ironic joke – of liberals hating liberty. I thought that humor was allowed, points of view weren’t. The old caption to the picture highlights the ridiculous attitude towards liberals, it is not based solely on a point of view, it is logical and most importantly, it is funny.

Yes it is. Bbortion is the killing of babies, whether you agree with it or not. And this is coming from someone who supports abortion (me). -X

• I also like the former Bill Clinton layout because it is split into one main heading and two sub-headings. Once again this is a nice neat and tidy and logically flowing layout. I believe it works better than the “symptoms of liberalism” layout. I don’t mind the heading “symptoms of liberalism”, I believe some very clever and funny things could be written, but the current section only mentions Bill Clinton. Perhaps Bill Clinton - a typical liberal, might be more appropriate?

If you want to make an article read like an encyclopedia instead of a comedy site, you might want to look into wikipedia. -X

These are just my opinions. I worked hard on the article to make it as funny and ironic as possible without introducing my personal political views and assumptions. One such assertion present at the moment is that a) Liberals always support abortions and b) Conservatives always oppose it. As much as the Christian Coalition would like to believe that is the case; it isn’t. Therefore abortion has no place in an article about liberals. Thanks for your time.

If you don’t fully agree here is an insulting haiku:

You smell really bad

The stench goes through your modem

Into my bedroom

(this is merely meant as a joke by the way. Kissing your arse Thanking you in advance for any help given.)

Weri long wang 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(points to the talk page) — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

That's all very well and good, but I'm asking you to unprotect the page, or at least revert it to my old version. Your the only person here who can. Weri long wang 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And I told you, go discuss it on the talk page. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Clinton image caption

What about the Clinton image caption then:

All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life (i.e. killing babies), gun control, and the pursuit of Stalinism (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?!!!!

That sense no makes and funny is not. That is based on ridiculous and facetious political assertions - bringing abortion into an article about liberals for instance. In the real world these two subjects are not related.

Yes, because liberals have never held pro-abortion ralleys -X

All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan.

That does make sense. It is logical, ironic and funny.

No, it's not funny, you are attempting to shove your political views into the article. Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, therefore it's not supposed to make sense, nor be politically correct. -X

Political correctness': I didn’t say anything about “political correctness”. When I’m writing on Uncyclopedia I never keep political correctness in mind. Since this is a place where I can in effect say whatever I want without risking having my house blown up (because nobody on Uncyclopedia knows who I am), political correctness always takes a back seat. So don’t start with that nonsense.

This is a weak argument. Political Correctness is Political Correctness, and you, sir, are playing the PC card. -x

Logical layout: When I say I want a section of the article to make sense I don’t mean I want it to make sense in the Wikipedia sense; I mean I want a joke to make sense. Saying that “if you support killing babies and Stalinism (if you’re not a millionaire) than that sense makes not. Not is funny when joke not make sense young Skywalker must learn.

this is uncyclopedia, not wikipedia -x

Political views: Please don’t be a hypocrite. My sentence about the irony of saying liberals hate liberty does not bring in any kind of political view; saying that all liberals are baby killing Stalinists most certainly does.

The Conservative article slanders conservatives (in a non satirical way), why shouldn't the Liberal article do the same? Uncyclopedia SHOULD be irreverent. Once again, this is uncyclopedia, not wikipedia -x

Abortion: So you’re saying that because a group of liberals has never held a pro-abortion rally the too subjects are automatically linked? Just because some liberals support abortion (just like some religious conservatives do) doesn’t mean that if you’re liberal you automatically support abortion (or if your conservative you automatically oppose it). Abortion has been a hobby horse of the American right ever since moralistic religious preachers took it over (It was around 1990 when this first happened. Here’s a quote from a traditional conservative politician, Republican governor William Weld, in the 1992 Republican convention: “I happen to think that individual freedom should extend to a woman's right to choose. I want the government out of your pocket book and your bedroom.” He said something similar in that in 1996 convention too. If you ask a conservative outside of the United States: what is more important, personal freedom and stopping the government from telling you how to live your lives, or stopping abortion? I think you will find the former is always the most important).

Let me translate what you just said to what you really mean: "Gays should be allowed to marry and the killing of unborn babies should be allowed (keep in mind I support abortion and have the balls to admit it for what it really is). Abortion is a major Liberal issue, one of the big 3 (War, Abortion, gay marriage). -x

Gay marriage? When the hell did I say anything about Gay marriage?! You’re doing it again: I did not say anything about gay marriage (and I don’t have an opinion on that issue one way or the other actually!), nor did I say anything about political correctness. I would also ask you not to tell me what I really mean; I know what I really mean!

I didn't say you said anything about gay marriage, i'm just saying it is a typical political 'hotspot' (at least, here in the US, it is more accepted abroad) -x

I respect what you’re saying, but I’m English (foreign as you would say). This is an article about liberals, not American liberals. Outside the USA, in England or Canada for instance, abortion (and gay marriage for that matter) is not a liberal (or conservative) issue. In fact I think it would be more fair to say that war, gay marriage and abortion are conservative (or more precisely Christian conservative, as opposed to traditional conservative, which I can relate to – personal freedom and the avoidance of governments interfering with peoples lives for instance) issue. It merely appears to be a liberal issue because liberals have to respond to these Christian conservative hobby horses.

I have to partially agree with you here, I didn't realize you were british and was thinking more in terms of an American Liberal. -x

I think we should write an article about general liberal ideology, and everything about it that is easy to make fun of. If you asked somebody as recently as the 1980s: “what are the major liberal issues?” The answer would almost certainly be: Thatcher’s and Reagan’s economic policies, not abortion. Let’s scrap time-centered, USA-centered liberal issues and produce an article that people around the world can relate to. (sign your article by putting four of these: ~ in a row) Weri long wang 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop bringing Wikipedia into it. You’re implying that the only difference between Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia is that Wikipedia is tidier! Uncyclopedia is about making fun of people and ideas with clever and yes I’ll say it again logical jokes. (This is nothing to do with Wikipedia)

Really? I'd say one of the funniest articles in all of uncyclopedia is the Napoleon Dynamite one, which is completely illogical and irreverent. -x

Here is the difference between a logical and illogical joke:

Why was the washing machine laughing?

It was taking the piss out of the underwear!

Why was the device for cleaning garments jolly?

It was removing urine from the undergarments!

The only reason I want it be logical is because it is only funny if it is logical. Otherwise it is dumb, nonsensical and unfunny. What is the main guide to writing Uncyclopedia articles? Be funny and not just stupid.

Bringing political opinions like “liberals are baby killing Stalinists” into it and then telling me that I’m bringing political views into this is unbelievably hypocritical.

I have never said anything of the sort, I don't know where you are getting that. You are assuming I have a political agenda. -x

Here look: this is what you said on that very issue: “No, it's not funny, you are attempting to shove your political views into the article. Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, therefore it's not supposed to make sense, nor be politically correct. –X”:

OK then, you’ve accused me something like five times now of being “politically correct”. Of course, unsiprisingly, you haven’t given one instance of this supposed PCness. So tell me now: how am I trying to be politically correct? Give at least one instance of it. Weri long wang 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say not wanting to talk about the details of abortion but being perfectly willing to talk about gay marriage is pretty PC if you ask me. If we can talk about clubbing seals and consider it funny, we should be allowed to talk about killing unborn babies. -x

“Not wanting to talk about the details of abortion” is not a matter of political correctness; it’s just that it is irrelevant to this article, and this subject. As for the baby seals thing I would have thought that would be the ultimate case of political incorrectness! If you wanted to be politically correct then there’s no way you could bring clubbing baby seals into a joke article about liberals. (Plus I didn’t write that part.) “Being willing to talk about” is distinct from “having any reason to talk about” a controversial subject. (Controversial in the USA at least; in my 19 years of being in this country I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any trouble caused over abortion.

And by the way what is all this stuff about “being willing to talk about gay marriage” about! You started that, not me! Just like abortion, gay marriage has nothing to due with the conventional liberal ideology; as apposed to the supposed American liberal ideology perpetuated by people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

I would say that neither you nor I have an obvious political agenda in mind; I think it’s all about the little details. If you want to know the absolute truth, I would be perfectly happy if the Clinton caption was put back to its old funny and ironic form. If that was done I would not complain any more. I can’t do that of course, because the page has been protected and the administrator who protected me won’t listen to my pleas to unprotect it! Weri long wang 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As for abortion, I’d say I’m more centrist than liberal. I believe in liberal ideals such as helping people who are less fortunate. I lived most of my childhood in a two-up two-down terraced house with my dad, who was a postman. Looking at the size of American houses, the house I lived in would look more like a garage in the USA! But today thanks to my hard work and yes, dare I say, intelligence, I’m studying network computing at Coventry University. Not fifty years ago only people from rich families (who were often exceedingly dumb) could go to university.

I also believe in what may be considered conservative values such as personal freedom and a government that keeps its nose out of the lives of everyday people. This is where abortion comes in. Republican governor William Weld put it best: “I happen to think that individual freedom should extend to a woman's right to choose. I want the government out of your pocket book and your bedroom.” He was actually booed off stage for saying that during the 1992 Republican convention! It was around this time that the neoconservatives began to placate to the religious right of the USA which they saw as a huge voting base. Now person freedom and limited government went out the window and preachy bible-bashers came in through the door!

If anyone killed a live baby, I would want to lynch them, not support them! At the present time the USA has a quai-religious government which tells people what they can and can’t do. This kind of thing is characteristic of religious police states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. I do not support governments of this kind. Weri long wang 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, putting the US in the same sentence as police states such as saudi arabia and iran shows just how absurd your argument is (why don't you ask a cuban or north korean immigrant, you know, someone from a REAL police state, what they think.) Second of all, abortion is the killing of a live baby, so would you want to lynch someone who has had an abortion? Talking about killing babies is something called "dark humor", which by the looks of it you have never heard of. One famous user of "dark humor" are monty python (you're british, you should know who they are). Actually, i'm beginning to think that the real reason you don't want to talk about abortion is not because it's the killing of babies, but because it is phrased in such a way to be politically incorrect and therefore make liberals look bad? And for a record, i'm not a republican, and I didn't vote for bush. -x

You’re pretty selective in the way you interpret information – it’s kind of funny to read the nonsense you write. I did not say the United States is a police state, I’m saying your current government rules in a fashion analogous to religious police states. (Just to give you less scope to spin what I just said into something totally different, North Korea and Cuba are not run this way. Nor am I saying, or did I ever say, that the United States itself is a police state.) And what is this about my ‘absurd argument’? My absurd argument is about getting the article unprotected; you’re the one who won’t drop the subject of politics.

A one week old embryo is a grouping of cells which is indistinguishable from most other mammalian embryos at that stage (nothing to do with evolution of course). I believe the importance of a human being lies in the mind, the brain and all that a human being encounters. I will say now, and I don’t care if you’re too sick to agree, an abortion is not on a par to putting a gun to the head of a one week old baby and killing it. If a woman in a ghetto is raped and decides that since she has no money and no job (probably thanks to the downsizing of a nearby plant) it would be more merciful to ‘murder’ that ‘baby’ before it developed a mind and soul and fears death? It would be right to bring up a child in such an environment? Well I can tell you, and again I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, I wouldn’t lynch her. All arguments about abortion are based on religion, not humanism, anyway. The only reason the unformed embryo is special is because it’s ‘created in the image of god’. Once the baby’s born it’s worth a hell of a lot less!

The fact that you are carrying on the subject of abortion (in an article about liberals) says something about you too. You really have to tell me what an evil sinner I am, don’t you? Can’t we just drop this whole subject and get back to the issue of reaching an agreement to finally unprotect the article.

Oh and on the subject of dark humor and making jokes about killing babies: in case you haven’t noticed, dick head, I WANT TO GET RID OF IT, YOU’RE THE ONE WHO WANTS TO LEAVE IT IN!!!!!!

And for the record I never implied you were a Republican, nor did I imply that you support or vote for George Bush, and for the record I think the three main parties in Britain (including the Lib Dems) are so pathetic and (as in the USA) so indistinguishable from one another that I don’t vote for any of them either! In Britain the ‘socialist’ Labour party is to the right of the Conservative party! Pretty hard to make a decision in this environment. I actually wrote a report for a local newspaper in Wakefield (the city where I lived before I moved to university – it was part of a so called ‘advantage’ course at six form college) about how hard it was to make your mind up who to vote for when they presented themselves in the way they are right now.

Now please make up your mind once and for all. Do you want to remove the reference to abortion, the ‘dark humor’ you supposedly find so abhorrent, or do want to leave it in? I’ll say it one more time: I want to remove it, NOT on the basis of political correctness, NOT on the basis of personal political convictions, NOT on how is supposedly makes liberals look (because according to you, all the god knows how many billions of liberal leaning American citizens support it – and you say I make absurd arguments) but because it is totally irrelevant to this article and putting it in to the caption destroyed quite a funny joke and turned into politically motivated hateful nonsense – the very thing you’re accusing me of. Weri long wang 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep you and your Political Correctness off of uncyclopedia, k? -x

Here we go again……

• No, it's not funny, you are attempting to shove your political views into the article. Uncyclopedia isn't wikipedia, therefore it's not supposed to make sense, nor be politically correct
• This is a weak argument. Political Correctness is Political Correctness, and you, sir, are playing the PC card. –x
• I would say not wanting to talk about the details of abortion but being perfectly willing to talk about gay marriage is pretty PC if you ask me. If we can talk about clubbing seals and consider it funny, we should be allowed to talk about killing unborn babies. -x
• Keep you and your Political Correctness off of uncyclopedia, k? –x

And by the way matey bollocks, I’ll take my “Political Correctness” wherever I want ‘K. Smartarse. Weri long wang 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

American vs. Other Liberals

-Rev. Isra (talk) says: The dispute people are having over the meaning of Liberalism is amazingly pointless. So how about we start with some facts?

Facts

Liberalism is a broad name for several general ideologies that emerged from the Anglo-American and Continental European political traditions during the Enlightenment and evolved into myriad forms throughout the intervening centuries. Broadly speaking every American in the political mainstream, in both parties, is a Liberal. Unsurprisingly no one uses this meaning in casual conversation.

In America, the term liberalism refers to the marriage of Modern American liberalism with Social progressivism. It generally favors the welfare state, opposes war, and supports the active advancement of historically oppressed groups, and believes that government is a positive good. The most prominent and controversial examples of American Liberal policies are affirmative action, legal abortion, and support for increased rights and privileges for gays and lesbians.

Elsewhere in the world the term liberalism can mean Classical liberalism, which is associated in America with Libertarianism and Economic Conservatism. Thus the Austrian Economist Friedrich Hayek sometimes called himself a liberal even though he is regarded as a pivotal figure in American Conservatism.

In many places, especially Europe, Liberalism can also have the connotation of Social_democracy, an ideology that is closer to American Liberalism, but still quite distinct from it.

In Britain, Liberal is also the name of a political party that is, in part, descended from the original Whig party of Britain, which was a pioneer of Liberalism (the first definition). Regardless of this, British conceptions of Liberalism are not necessarily identical to Whiggism.

What to do

Currently the article is plainly about American Liberalism, not the Liberalism of Britain or any other country, and not about Liberalism in general. While this remains the case, it is amazingly stupid to argue that international definitions of Liberalism should guide the article's humor. I'm sorry, Weri Long Wang, but if you don't know how American politics works, you shouldn't be trying to define how best to make fun of it.

If someone wants to write an article about Liberalism as a broad political movement over the last few centuries, or to write an article about what liberalism means internationally, they are welcome to do it. There are other articles that the redeemable stuff in this article can go to, so replacing it isn't that big of a deal. Plus it would be nice to really have an encyclopedic treatment of this subject. Because seriously, if I want to read children throwing poorly written insults at each other, I can always find an Ann Coulter or Maureen Dowd column.

The caveat is that the sort of cheap and dirty humor currently on this article isn't likely to cut it for those types of articles. An article on the Liberal tradition is going to have to be able to joke about inconsistancies in Thomas Jefferson's ideas, laugh about the subtle changes in definitions of freedom or equality, tackle the relationship Marx has had to mainstream political thought, and make jokes about Kant, Hume, Smith, Paine, Mill, Locke, Dewey, Keynes, Montesquieu, and a host of others. In short, you'd really have to know your shit.

For an article about international liberalism, the person writing it would have to pull off being both funny and informative, because not everyone really knows about the different meaning the word has, and most people don't keep track of the difference.

The bottom line here is to write about what you know well. The arguments going on here seem to indicate that the people fighting about this article don't.

I’ll say this one more time and then I’ll leave all you guys alone. All I want is change that Clinton caption into my old one. Why? Because the one there at the moment doesn’t make sense. The point of my caption was to highlight the irony of American conservatives telling liberals they hate freedom. I don’t like the fact that abortion comes into it because I believe this belongs in the American liberals article, for reasons highlighted above.

Am I motivated by “political correctness”? No. Just look (yes that’s right, use your own eyes and your own brain) at some of the other articles I’ve written and contributed to (especially relating to religion – my contributions to the God article was removed because it was too politically incorrect!). If you look you’ll quickly realize that I don’t hold political correctness in high regard. I just don’t like Americans who believe the word liberal can’t exist without the word abortion within 5 inches of it.

Maybe I’m intransigent enough to start an article about international liberalism; we’ll just have to wait and see. It would be nice to be able to write an informative article using dry humour, kind of like Bremner, Bird and fortune and get away with it.Weri long wang 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Zis ist Uncyclopedia ve do not do facts here. :) HowTo:Be a liberal spells it out a lot better than this article does. So does Holy Bible: Revised Liberal Edition. One can make the same arguments about conservatism having several schools throughout the world and that American conservatism is more like NeoConservatism and in the UK it is Classic Conservatism and other parts of the world it is Modern Conservatism. But at the point of splintering up such things they cease to become funny anymore. Could we, oh, I dunno, maybe have sections explaining the differences between Classic Liberalism, Modern Liberalism, American Liberalism, Secular Progressive Liberalism, NeoLiberalism, and Communism, Humanism, Secularism, Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, that became offshoots of Liberalism? Maybe someone can find a way to make all of that funny one day? Until then, let's group all liberals together in a strerotype like they do conservative just to be fair. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about talking about liberal stereotypes, that's what makes the article funny; the problem is my notorious "political correctness". I'm so "politicaly correct" that I'm willing to add a picture which compares Bill Clinton to Satan, I'm willing to say the liberals hate everything that is pure and holy, that they are close-minded tree huggers with 20GB of porn on their hard drives and I'm willing to make jokes about clubbing baby seals to death, but I draw the line at people ruining my ironic jokes; that's when my "political correctness" really takes hold!!!!!

Here is what I'm asking for, the reinsertion of the old Clinton caption - because it is clever and funny (I'm copying and pasting to show that I've said this many times already)

• Remove the vicious and nonsensical caption of the Clinton image (All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life (i.e. killing babies), gun control, and the pursuit of Stalinism (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan.) and revert it to its old form (All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan.)
• The caption to the Clinton picture which says one of the liberal ideals is “killing babies” is NOT FUNNY and is definitely a facetious comment based on extreme political views which when judged impartially; are wrong. Plus it breaks the chain of words in the caption that make up the ironic joke – of liberals hating liberty. I thought that humor was allowed, points of view weren’t. The old caption to the picture highlights the ridiculous attitude towards liberals, it is not based solely on a point of view, it is logical and most importantly, it is funny.
• What about the Clinton image caption then: All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life (i.e. killing babies), gun control, and the pursuit of Stalinism (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Satan. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?!
• Logical layout: When I say I want a section of the article to make sense I don’t mean I want it to make sense in the Wikipedia sense; I mean I want a joke to make sense. Saying that “if you support killing babies and Stalinism (if you’re not a millionaire) than that sense makes not. Not is funny when joke not make sense young Skywalker must learn.
• Stop bringing Wikipedia into it. You’re implying that the only difference between Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia is that Wikipedia is tidier! Uncyclopedia is about making fun of people and ideas with clever and yes I’ll say it again logical jokes. (This is nothing to do with Wikipedia)
• The only reason I want it be logical is because it is only funny if it is logical. Otherwise it is dumb, nonsensical and unfunny. What is the main guide to writing Uncyclopedia articles? Be funny and not just stupid.
• putting it in to the caption destroyed quite a funny joke and turned into politically motivated hateful nonsense – the very thing you’re accusing me of

How about this? Drop the whole killing babies stuff, and instead write in sacrificing the young to Moloch, and instead of saying are in line with Satan say are in line with Moloch. I am sure that sacrificing is a lot less offensive than killing, and link the sacrificing to abortion like this: "All people who uphold the liberal ideals of life (i.e. sacrificing the young), gun control, and the pursuit of Stalinism (at least for people who aren't billionaires) are in line with Moloch." It just sounds a lot funnier to me that way, and ties in with the Moloch article and settles the abortion issue once and for all and makes it funny. Can you both agree on that? On the Clinton picture use the sacrificing the young instead of killing babies. It links to the abortion article. That follows a certain logic and it is funny as well. I myself am a moderate so I can see the issues between the left and right here. What do you think? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about the implications of saying that liberals are in line with Satan (A sarcastic comment placed in by me) or that they "kill babies" (A comment which I put in the American liberals article), it's all about spoiling the joke about liberals hating liberty. The comedic value and irony of that statement is lost and replaced with illogical meaningless gibberish - I mean illogical incomprehensible gibberish. Just keep my joke in. I'll say this again: it's not "political correctness" that's the issue, it's comedic value; something which is very near and deer to my heart as a brit.

Now the article's been semi-protected Its not an issue, because it was only one I.P. address causing all the trouble. If you want to say something about Moloch then fine, just put it elsewhere in the article. Weri long wang 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it it might even be funny to mention Moloch. Alex Jones always says that people who run American behind the shadows worship Moloch, and we all know that liberals (like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld) run America behind the shadows! If you have to mention abortion why not say that it is a liberal ritual to sacrafice babies to Moloch. It's a very obscure reference that few people will understand, but you can even say that abortions take place during the cremation of care at Bohemian Grove! Have a think about it. Remember though, it must be funny and logical. Weri long wang 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Link it to Moloch if you can. Care could represent a baby, and burning a baby for Moloch is abortion, which liberals support. Also Bohemians are into arts and literature which are more liberal things than conservative things. So Moloch is more of a liberal god than a conservative one. I already added in a Bill Clinton reference in the Moloch article and others contributed to it. You can keep the Bill Clinton is Satan picture, but say that he reports to or works with Moloch. Work with it, I am sure you can figure out some logical funny thing with it. Glad to have helped. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I’ll put the Moloch joke on the American liberals article where it will be in-context. Weri long wang 09:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody know that liberals's ideal is pursuit for equality, like a cow should have equal rights as any human. 70.49.110.145 05:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's right, liberals talk about granting cows the same rights as humans all the time. Weri long wang 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean PETA, liberals are members of PETA and want to grant animals the same rights and freedoms as human beings. Like a Cow, born in the USA, should be able to run for President, and John Kerry was the first Horse that ran for President (he has a horse face) and the mistreatment and bigotry towards animals made it impossible for him to be elected. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been watching South Park too much! Besides, that’s an old reductio ad absurdum argument. Here is the logic behind your argument:

All members of PETA are liberals (assuming that in its self is true)

Joe Bloggs is a liberal

Therefore Joe Bloggs is a member of PETA

Therefore all liberals believe humans and cows are equal

Even that argument is true what is wrong with letting a cow run for president? Michael Moore agrees that Hillary Clinton would make a better president than George Bush and I agree. Weri long wang 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No no no:

All liberals support the rights and freedoms of every living being (assuming that in its self is true)

PETA supports the rights and freedoms of animals to be equal to that of human beings.

PETA agrees with the liberals view, and liberals agree with PETA's views

Joe Bloggs is a liberal

Therefore Joe Bloggs agrees with PETA

Therefore all liberals believe humans and cows are equal

Bill Clinton is a bullshitter, therefore Bill Clinton must be a bull in order to bullshit.

If Bill Clinton is a bull, it stands to reason that his wife Hillary is a cow.

Therefore Hillary is a cow.

Bulls and cows have horns.

Bill Clinton has horns, Satan has horns, Bill Clinton is a bullshitter, Satan is a bullshitter, therefore Bill Clinton is Satan.

Can you use that as material? Yes South Park is very funny, but I haven't watched it since 2003. Yet I have humor like Trey Parker and Matt Stone do, which is like Andy Kaufman, and other mentally ill comedians. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well lets just say I consider myself liberal and neither I nor anyone I know believes humans and cows are equal. It must just be an amazing coincidence that the only time PETA was mentioned on South Park was the only time John Kerry was too. And no, I don't support PETA (I'm not against them either, but I still feel human rights are more important - much more important). And by the way, there's no need for sarcasm.Weri long wang 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

George Bush is incapable of eating a pretzel

George Bush is a republican

All Republicans are incapable of eating pretzels

You are incapable of eating pretzels

Maybe not all liberals, but a group trying to give cows equal rights and freedoms to humans is funny and an exageration if you say all liberals think that way. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the people at PETA go a bit too far in only caring about animals but PETA has nothing to do with liberalsim. Some conservatives who care about animal rights might be insulted by that assertion. I think the problem is that people in the West forget what a priveledge human rights are and that many people don't have it as good as us so we forgot how important human rights really are. Weri long wang 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem, as I see it, are that US Citizens are spoiled by all the rights and freedoms they are given, that even allow them to abuse their rights and freedoms without discipline or responsibility. Even Criminals, Murderers, Child Molestors, and yes even Terrorists are given rights and freedoms, though they don't really deserve them and need to have them taken away to teach them a lesson in taking away rights and freedoms from others. That yes, even bullies, assholes, and abusive people are given rights and freedoms, though they aren't really responsible with those rights and freedoms and get away scot-free in the USA, and in other nations they'd either be running the government, be a military or police officer, or be executed for crimes against society/religion/government/whatever. What really gets me upset, is that we have people whose rights and freedoms are being violated in our own nation, and some group of people seem to think that the rights and freedoms of animals are more important than the rights and freedoms of people. Sorry, human beings did not evolve and grow to become top of the food chain for nothing. That cow (or actually in truth a steer) needs to be cornfed and then chopped up into hamburger on the dollar menu of a fast food joint so some homeless person can afford to eat a meal, because I (or someone like me) gave them $5 as a donation so that homeless person can live another day without slowing starving to death, because nobody cares about his/her rights and freedoms and persuit of happiness except people like me who donate money for them and the fast food industry that feeds them. Go ahead and tell that homeless person they should not eat that $1 hamburger and should instead starve, because the fast food salad costs $6 without a drink, but at least they won't be eating any animals or animal by-products. I do know for a fact, that at least some liberals are PETA members and pass out comic books to children saying "Your Mommy Murders Animals" in public schools. Maybe you should write a sub-section on PETA Liberals, who think that the rights and freedoms of animals are more important than the rights and freedoms of human beings, but also write that not all liberals think that way and think that all human beings should be treated equally and that animals are a nice tasty food group. Just saying. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right, the members of the American government aren't arseholes or bullies. Just like abortion I think its unfair to automatically equate liberals with PETA (the two people I've asked since I got out of bed don't even know what PETA is!). Maybe in the American liberals article? I know some "terrorists" and some British citizens who happened to be visiting Pakistan to meet family members don't have much fun in Guantanamo Bay. Those two people have since been released though - and they where only in there for two years! It's kind of ironic and very fucking annoying that people like Saddam Hussein are kept away from anything more humiliating than a picture of him in his underpants. Weri long wang 09:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You got a point to not equate liberals with PETA, though I am willing to bet that at least some liberals agree with PETA. That depends on those people being caught with weapons in a war-zone in the company of Al-Qeada members leading them. I guess it took two years to figure out they were manipulated by real terrorists or only supported terrorists they did not even know where terrorists. I for one wanted Saddam in Gitmo myself, but I guess an Iraqi Jail might be worse because they are still run like when Saddam ran them. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And on the subject of brainwashing children a program on Channel 4 presented by Richard Dawkins detailed the acts of religous extremists of Colorado including a teacher being told he was "Satan's incarnate" for teaching evolution, children as young as 12 being taken to "hell houses" and having the living shit scared out of them by being told they're going to be burned for ever in hell if they dont follow their religous masters (the program showed a rehersal of a part about abortion and believe me it was pretty horific) and children, along with there science teachers being invited to summer camps with the biology teachers being challenged on the subject of evolution in front of the children. And this religous brainwashing isn't limited to America; in the same episode he met an English woman who works as a psychiatrist who acts to rehabilitate children scared by their "narrow religous upbringing". Why does she do this? Because she had to go through the same thing when she was a girl. When Dawkins asked her what she was tought about "hellfire" as a girl she could barely bring herself to answer and finally responded "it's funny but after all these years it still has the power to effect me" and finally brought herself to answer the question by saying: "hell is a fearful place. It's complete rejection by God. There is real fire, there is real torture and it goes on forever, so there is no respite from it". Nice. Weri long wang 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, my Church does not do that, and we are Roman Catholic. We teach "Love and Logic" in which we present children with choices, and they learn from their mistakes. My son is just learning about the types of animals and how they evolved that way in his Catholic school. We teach that sins can be forgiven, so one does not need to burn in hell. That hell is really for the devil and his followers, and those with sin go to purgatory to purge their sins, before going into heaven. That if a child makes a mistake and sins, they can ask for forgiveness and learn from the mistake so they won't make it again. If Dawkins is a scientist, why is he researching religion and using religion in science? Dawkins himself used evolution to teach that atheism is the true religion on some talk shows and lectures. Evolution does not really talk about if god exists or not, if you bothered to research it. Evolution is really not a threat to christianity, until someone uses it as a tool to teach atheism in public schools and gives anti-christian messages like you just did. I never heard of a "hellhouse" before in all of my 38 years of existance. We have "haunted houses" for halloween, but those are not christian, but pagan or secular type of celebrations, some churches refuse to participate in them for that reason. Our church participates, but instead of a "haunted house" they have trunk or treat in the parking lot and children dress up in costumes and get candy and plastic toys from the trunks of cars. We teach them to make good decisions in our school, but we do not motivate them by guilt or fear, but rather by love. Love of oneself and other people, and god which is the sum of the whole universe. We teach them that one does not need to believe in god to be moral, but that a christian needs to be moral to worship god. I think that it is the protestants, non-demoninationals, baptists, etc that hold some of the views you presented like burning in hell for sinning and not following christian leaders, because they do not believe in purgatory or forgiveness for some sins. They are most likely to be TV evangelists always asking for donations, the ones the public mostly sees and gets influenced from. They are most likely to be Fundamentalist Christians or Radical Christians, though sometimes they are Liberal Christians or Secular Christians in some of their churches, to be honest. Roman Catholics are more like Moderate Christians, but very few of the non-Christians understand us, but usually know The Pope. The Pope is usually a Fundamentalist Christian because of the way it is in Italy and Rome and the Cardinals elect The Pope and they have been appointed by Fundamentalist Popes in the past. We Roman Catholics believe that all sins can be forgiven, and if not then purgatory exists for those who haven't asked for forgiveness and haven't committed serious sins like murder, genocide, etc. That Hell is for people like Hitler, who did some serious sinning and never repented. As Roman Catholics, we use critical thinking as Jesus taught, using Love and Logic to make good decisions. Jesus was a philosopher as well as a socialist, because he was a Rabbi (which is Jewish for teacher) and taught many things. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian BS and attacks on science that go off track of this topic

First of all atheism is not a religion! Second of all I’m not against Christianity, I only mentioned Dawkin’s program due the fact that you brought up the subject of liberals getting messages across to children in an underhand way like telling them their parents are murderers. Admittedly the Christians Dawkins was taking to weren’t Catholics, they were the Evangelicals of the New Life Church is Colorado (and elsewhere in the United States). Throughout the two 45-minute programs there was no major criticism of Catholicism other than this:

“Non of this is dangerous when it is limited to the Virgin going to heaven; but what about the Pope’s personal conviction on, say, the use of condoms in AIDs ridden Africa? This time the power of the church through revelation, tradition and authority comes with an appalling human cost”

Here are links to Wikipedia articles on Dawkin’s program[1] and on “hell houses”[2]. All I know is that when I have children I’m going to keep them as far away from religion as possible! Religion is very vague on what “sins” are and it seems as if religious people are always feeling guilty; am I pleasing God? I say we should just enjoy life while we’re here, rather than worrying about what happens after we die!

Like you said though Catholics and Jews (in the United States at least) tend to be moderate and tend to sink into the background, unlike Evangelicals. Weri long wang 09:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Atheism is ruled a religion by law which is the definition I used. Perhaps you have a point with that hell house, but it does not seem to be as common enough that I heard of it before. I'd categorize the evangelicals using it as a cult like the moonies, Jim Jones, or David Koresh and the Davidians type of Christians rather than real or true Christians. The absence of a religion is not atheism and not secularism, because both of them say that there is no god and worship nature or the universe instead. Atheism, agnosticism, secularism are branches of a religion that says there are no gods and worship nature or the universe itself instead. Well in the case of weak atheism and agnosticism, they doubt there is a god due to lack of proof or something. Raising your children is your own business, and I won't tell you how to raise them or what religion or not to put them in. If my church did a hell house, I'd take my child out of that church and find a new church that didn't have one. Sins are based on morals and ethics, the bible is supposed to list what morals and ethics to follow, like those ten commandments "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder" which you might agree with a few of them that stealing and murdering are wrong, and thus sins. Generally sins are negative things; however, in order to sin one must know that what they are doing is wrong, otherwise it is a mistake. Adultery is a sin because it harms the spouse emotionally. I could give you logical reasons as to each sin and why it is a sin, but it would take forever. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If Satan is a really bad guy, why does he punish bad people in hell? I would think that he would get along well with them! So, do you believe God spontaneously formed himself and the universe 6000 years ago? Do you believe the first man came from blowing into a handful of mud and the first woman from a rib? That’s sexist anyway; at least ribs taste nice!Weri long wang 09:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Satan is a prisoner in hell and he is tortured as well. Hell is the separation from god and external death. One is suffering for all eternity in hell, like they are being burned. Hell is also a state of mind, with me having several mental illnesses I can honestly tell you that I experienced hell in my mind. Hell on Wikipedia might have more on it, but I can tell you that hell is the opposite of paradise and more like a prison. Purgatory is like a waiting room for a dentist or doctor's office. Yet Satan has a role, in the book of Job he tortures Job in order to "test" him. God has a relationship with Satan (before Satan was exiled to Hell) and allows him to talk to him. Satan says that people only worship God because of all the blessings God gave people. God, acting like a father, questions Satan, and gives as an example his servant Job who is a good man and worships God every day and hardly ever sins. Satan says that if he takes away all of God's blessings from Job that Job would curse God. God asks Satan to show him, to take things away from Job but not kill him. Satan kills Job's sheep and cows and pigs, and destroys his barn and farm. Then his wife and kids, and then makes Job very sick with boils and a fever. After everything is taken away from Job, including his health, he asks God why he forsaken him and curses God. God disciplines Job and says who can control the rain or weather, etc. That life isn't easy and sometimes bad things happen to good people. That due to the garden of eden (being the perfect world) people would still sin and thus bad things happen when one sins. That Job had the sin of pride and thought he was better than all of the rest. Now that Job was humbled, God gave everything back to him. Replaced it all, because the lord giveth and the lord taketh away. It also showed that God sometimes sets the universe on autopilot and sits back and sees what we or others will do. That is free will, aka self will, and even Satan and the angels have free will and can end up sinning. What I believe is that the book of Genesis was written so a person living 6000 years ago could understand it. That according to Einstein's theory of relativity time and space are relative, and God exists in time/space with heavier gravity and can control time and space. That if the universe was created in six days, that it is six God days and not six Earth days. That there is a kernel of truth in the Genesis story, "let there be light" was the big bang which created a flash of light into the void/universe and expanded it with hydrogen which became stars, etc. When God made human beings out of Earth/clay/mud it was the primeval soul that all life sprang from via evolution and woman was made to match man, but be able to bear offspring and thus was designed slightly different. That Creationism, Evolution, ID, etc overlap in many ways, but the theory I want to research more of is the theory of change, which helps explain the grand unification theory and just about everything else, but Dawkins, Christians, etc all dismiss the theory of change and no body has yet even dared public articles and papers on the theory of change yet. Change exists in this universe, and the theory of change is falsifiable if it can be proven that change does not exist. All evolution shows is how a life form can adapt to change, yet in doing so it changes its design in the process, which is intelligent if you ask me. Yet yes, it is flawed, and the design is flawed in some ways. The Bible is a collection of books, all written separately, some are historical texts, some philosophical, some social, some poetry, some parables, and some letters that were written and turned into books (like Paul's letters he wrote to churches). Jesus showed that a lot of the Torah was human tradition and not God's tradition, so it is hard to figure out the difference between the two in the Old Testament. In reality it does not matter if creationism, evolution, ID, theory of change, etc is correct or all wrong, to any Christian because what should matter to them is why God created them and not how. It was out of love that God created life. The how we should leave up to other things like science. Religion has been hijacked by charismatic people, and they use it to manipulate people. I agree, Osama bin Laden does that, as does Jerry Falwell, and even Richard Dawkins. Yes Richard Dawkins is the atheist version of Jerry Falwell as far as I'm concerned. Dawkins makes fallacies after fallacies in his arguments, appeals to emotion, appeals to ignorance, false authority, straw man, and mostly non sequitur. For a Scientist to not even bother to follow proper logic and reasoning, I find to be highly laughable. His scientific books and theories I find flaws like that in them as well. I find flaws in a lot of things, most things have flaws in them. I will not be manipulated by these invalid arguments, maybe you believe them, but that is your business. I follow Jesus not Jerry Falwell, I learned critical thinking from Jesus and do not blindly follow religious leaders. Jesus gave me a soul, that consists of a mind, will, and emotions, of which I will use to best serve Jesus. That is all a soul or spirit is, a mind, a will, and emotions, the software to our hardware. Science does not deal in the mind, will, and emotions, nor can science prove that they exist. God and the Soul are like dark matter and dark energy, you cannot detect them, but you know they are there because of how they influence things in the universe. Did you know that most of our universe is missing by the way? Also laughable is trying to determine the true age of the universe, because they found galaxies and stars older than they thought the universe was. We are still Neanderthals as far as the truth of the universe and life is concerned. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, WTF does all this debate have to do with funny articles? Let us just agree to make fun of liberals. Add in the PETA things to PETA (group) which should be funnier over there. Hillary is a Cow is funny, and Bill Clinton is Satan and a Bull is funny as well. If we leave out the South Park PETA jokes, how about we just deadpan the liberal theology that everyone has equal rights and freedoms, even terrorists, criminals, child molesters, assholes (who run our government anyway) and that means reduced prison sentences and time off for good behavior and (now the funny stuff) time outs, writing angry letters, and posting about it in anonymous blogs. That Conservatives/NeoCons want to take away freedoms and rights of terrorists, criminals, child molestors, but not assholes (because then they would be out of a job). Deal or no deal? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

“Creationism, Evolution, ID, etc overlap in many ways?” NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Creationism and intelligent design perfectly overlap but evolution is based on entirely different principles. I can tell you, as a science nerd with no friends, that evolution and creationism (or whatever the particular euphemism for creationism is) are completely different from each other.

Then you know jack squat about the theories. Darwin raised questions about creationism and used creationism and references to creationism to form his natural selection theory. There are some overlaps there, as Darwin admitted to in his time. Since natural selection is a part of modern evolution, it shows some overlap as Darwin had based some of it on creationism. Since you didn't know that, you don't know the theories. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

“Dawkins makes fallacies after fallacies in his arguments, appeals to emotion, appeals to ignorance, false authority, straw man, and mostly non sequitur.” Again I can tell you as a science nerd that Dawkins does not appeal to ignorance or make fallacious arguments. I know a lot about evolution in general and biochemistry in particular (See my Wikipedia account[3], yes that’s right, I have no life) and I can tell you that all his arguments (on the subject of evolution at least) are based on science.

I can read his works just fine and I find the flaws in them. Don't try to BS me, I see his fallacies very clearly. I took critical thinking classes along with my science classes. Most of his arguments are based on atheism and fallacies, and not science at all. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that you said I believe in evolution. Evolution, just like gravity is not a matter of belief for me; it is a matter of understanding. Science, unlike religion, is based on knowledge, not blind belief or faith. I suppose the exception to this rule for me might be things like quantum mechanics. I’ve inevitably come across a few things related to quantum mechanics like De Broglie's theorem or Einstein’s photoelectric equation, but I can’t honestly say that I understand quantum mechanics!

Science is taught with blind belief of faith, we are forced to believe in it or risk getting low grades. Science is just another religion, one that worships knowledge and the universe. Almost all of my science teachers in public school tried to force atheism on me that taught me evolution. When I wouldn't accept atheism as a religion, though I understood the scientific theories, I was mocked and made fun of in class, and other kids picked fights with me and tried to beat me up over it for being a Christian. I had a better time because I picked an International credited college that focuses on true science and does not tie it to any religion or bias. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and you might want to think about that the next time you purchase newly designed antibiotics to replace the old ones which bacteria has evolved to be resistant to. Does God change the bacterial genomes? I certainly hope not!

I am not saying that evolution is wrong, I am however saying that it is flawed and that some if not most of the evolutionary works are based on fallacies, fraud, fudging of research data, and miscalculations. That I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid. That the theory of change and other theories explain modern biology and how bacterial genomes change to resist antibiotics. It is quite possible that god set evolution into motion, or does directly change the bacterial genomes, all creatures great and small and all that. Yet you cannot explain the bacterial genomes that have not evolved in millions to billions of years, not any other living thing that has not evolved. Even further you cannot recreate evolution in a lab no matter how hard you try to do that, like create a single celled organism and evolve it into a human-like being. It is a flawed theory, and when Darwin wrote his original books he listed the flaws in his theory, only modern evolution does not list the flaws in it, because it is not a real science but a religion. Darwin had a point about natural selection, but technology helps negate natural selection in more advanced nations of the world and can help keep people alive that would have died in third world nations. Evolution does not explain technology or tools or how they help living things change further. Just look at what happens to a person when they use the Internet and they make changes in their lifestyle and how their whole body changes. The same thing happened when the TV set and radio were invented. Did you notice a change in the obesity rates, did you notice a change in the mental illness rates? That is the theory of change right there, and nothing to do with evolution. Technology and tools exist outside of nature, yet science claims that nothing exists outside of nature. Singularities exist outside of nature as well, ask Steven Hawking about why he was wrong about black holes and lost his bet? His theory was flawed, as are most scientific theories flawed. The whole scientific model of the universe is so flawed that given the amount of matter and energy we can detect as existing, is not enough to allow galaxies to stay together, they would break apart as would solar systems. Instead something natural science cannot detect is providing the gravity and force that keeps galaxies and solar systems together. Modern science cannot explain why that happens, because most scientists made fallacies, did fraud, and fudged research data, and now we may as well be in the dark scientifically as the flat Earthers were in their days. I can read you being emotional, trying to persuade me with fallacies as well. I earned a bachelors of science with a 3.91 GPA and graduated with honors, so don't think you can pull any fallacies over me. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will ask you here, not spitefully and with all respect, do you anything about evolution? When I say that I mean have you ever read scientific literature explaining evolution? There are plenty of popular science books that will allow you to understand it without buffeting against Dawkin’s views and his ego throughout the entire book. I think you will find that if you look at what evolution is really about, you might exclaim, as a young religious American who saw one of Dawkin’s lectures did: “Gee, this evolution, it really makes sense!” I really suggest that you buy a book on the subject of evolution; even if by the end of it you don’t accept evolution for whatever reason, I’m sure you will still find it a fascinating read.Weri long wang 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does make sense and yes I have read some books and web sites and had some classes. I earned a bachelors of science and graduated with honors. I uncovered a lot of fraud and fallacies in scientific papers, books, and works. Dawkin is a huckster, pure and simple, he tries to pass off religion as science. There are other scientists who don't do that, yet still make mistakes and have flaws. Look, your ignorance is showing. If you ever bothered to study critical thinking and logic, a foundation for science, you would know that even if an argument is invalid due to a fallacy, that does not make it automatically false. Yet since you do not even know those simple basic steps, I highly doubt you understand how science works, much less took college classes like I did. If you did, you'd know how to spot fallacies, how to examine research and see if the numbers make sense or followed the scientific method. For example, Dawkin does not give enough information on repeating his experiments, so by default it does not follow the scientific method in that a peer can do the same experiment and see if they get the same results. Nor do they allow anyone skeptical of the theories, to examine the fossils or any other evidence used in the experiments. If you did earn a degree, it sounds like you had poor professors who taught dogma and religion rather than science, because you don't even know critical thinking, logic, and how to spot fallacies. Those are taught to freshmen in a science degree. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that you know jack squat about true science. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you obvoiusly didn't check my Wikipedia page did you? I studied biology, physics and mathematics in Wakefield Sixth Form College and recieved the following grades: AS Level in biolgy: B, A2 ("full") A-Levels in physics: A and mathematics: B. I am now studying for a BSc in network cdomputing at Coventry university. And you want to know how much I know on the subject of biochemistry? Well why not check out the Wikipedia article on the photosynthetic reaction centre (and my barnstar)? It's kind of hurtful that you tell me I know jack squat about science but I dodn't take it personally; it's the just the characteristic arrogant nature of people like you - people who know everything and yet know nothing. And how can you say I was taught dogma and religion? Doesn't may understanding of science directly contradict your religous version?!Weri long wang 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you obviously didn't check my Wikipedia page did you? I studied biology, physics and mathematics in Wakefield Sixth Form College and received the following grades: AS Level in biology: B, A2 ("full") A-Levels in physics: A and mathematics: B. I am now studying for a BSc in network computing at Coventry university. And you want to know how much I know on the subject of biochemistry? Well, why not check out the Wikipedia article on the photosynthetic reaction centre (and my barnstar)? It's kind of hurtful that you tell me I know jack squat about science but I don’t take it personally; it's the just the characteristic arrogant nature of people like you - people who know everything and yet know nothing. And how can you say I was taught dogma and religion? Doesn't may understanding of science directly contradict your religious version?!Weri long wang 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, why is it that in the United States anybody who supports science in general and evolution in particular is automatically a liberal? Why is it also that people don’t believe every last word of the Bible are also liberal by default?

Lighten up folks, seriously. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.73.203 (talk • contribs)

We worked it out on our talk pages. We agree to disagree and that each other has views and opinions that we both respect and don't want to force our views and opinions on the other. That we should work together to make the liberals article a lot funnier than waste our time in a useless debate over which one of us is the bigger moron or whatever. We both agreed that we both were possessed during Halloween time, and that November 1st broke the possession. My mental illness possessed me, and Weri was possessed by the spirit of Athe, which explains the big flamewar here that makes no sense and might be funny, although possibly not. Let's just all agree to forgive and forget and write some funny stuff about liberals. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was morally obliged to act that way; it’s written in my holy scriptures. Here’s a passage from the Book of Complex Numbers 1 + 6i:

“..And Athe said unto Weri: if your brother, the son of your father or your mother, or a member of Uncyclopedia tries to tell you “yay, evolution is false”. You must nag him to death. Your keyboard must strike the first blow in sending him insane. You must nag him to death for he has tried to divert you from your goddesses: Athe & Science (Science is in fact a goddess)”

I was released from her grasp 10 minutes after Halloween ended. Weri long wang 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I could just say I was possessed by a demon or turned into a werewolf or some other religious or science mumbo jumbo. Instead I will use Psychology and just say that temporarily went insane for a few days. I do suffer from several mental illnesses that are triggered with stress, and I was under a lot of stress. Apparently my mental illnesses did battle with Athe, and I am sorry to have that kind of thing happen on a professional site like Uncyclopedia when it should have been ED or Wikipedia instead that are not so professional and encourage those sorts of things. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Book of Complex Numbers isn’t real. Well, the 1 part is, the 6 part is imaginary though. If you apply that chapter to the Holy Trinity (Book of Complex Numbers³) you get -107 -198i.

Athe is a great fan of complex dynamics. Weri long wang 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)