Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Challenge"
(kudos to conservapedia) |
m (catg: policy -> Issuepedia/policies) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[category: | + | [[category:Issuepedia/policies]]If you find yourself disagreeing with many of the opinions expressed here on [[Issuepedia]], then take the [[Issuepedia:Challenge]]! |
==How It Works== | ==How It Works== | ||
The challenge goes like this: | The challenge goes like this: | ||
Latest revision as of 12:55, 8 October 2009
If you find yourself disagreeing with many of the opinions expressed here on Issuepedia, then take the Issuepedia:Challenge!
How It Works
The challenge goes like this:
- Find an opinion you disagree with
- Write a comment (or create a page) either criticizing the opinion, or (preferably) defending and supporting your (dissenting) opinion
- Post that comment (or a link to the page you created) immediately after the opinion with which you are disagreeing
- Keep coming back to see what comments others may have posted in response
That way, everyone who reads the opinion you disagree with will also see the counterarguments, your exposure of the blatant mischaracterizations and rhetoric of the original opinion – the untold truth which Issuepedia is trying to keep from the masses – the great lie of the elite liberal media conspiracy (of which Issuepedia one day hopes to be a member, or at least to be allowed to sit at the back if it is very quiet)!
For example, if you are of the opinion that:
- Belief in God is rational, or the Bible was written by the creator of the universe, or the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, or the Bible is the best moral authority we have available.
- Abortion is just plain wrong.
- Clinton was a slimy weasel not worthy to lick the shoes of George W. Bush.
- Neoconservatives are actually conservative.
- If we withdraw from Iraq, the Islamofascists will have won and civilization is doomed.
- If we legalize gay marriage, radical secularism will have won and civilization is doomed.
...please, help the rest of us to understand how anyone could believe these things! As Supreme Lord Editor-in-Chief, I, Woozle, believe firmly in freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and therefore guarantee you will not be ostracized by myself or anyone whose opinion I respect! (Disclaimer: I can't, unfortunately, guarantee that others who believe as you do will not ostracize you for being willing to openly discuss those beliefs thus leaving them open to rational analysis – the arch-enemy of dogma.)
The willingness to question one's beliefs is the hallmark of the open mind. This site was created to allow anyone to post their beliefs for others to question, and to question beliefs posted by others. Are you willing to take part in that process, or is it more important for you to support the beliefs you already have in any way you can?
Prove these allegations wrong! Take the Issuepedia Challenge!
(And yes, we realize that people don't always have time to explain things in full. Just do the best you can, in what time you have available. I'm not getting paid to do this either; I just think it's really important for us, as a civilization, to work these things out.)
Related Stuff
Kudos to Conservapedia for creating a space in which the Christian-conservative version of reality can be mapped out in detail. It remains to be seen if any Christian-conservative groups will formally sanction Conservapedia as being a reliable source of truth in any particular areas, or whether most such groups have more interest in keeping the official truth fragmented and vague so as to avoid any kind of understanding or consensus between factions.