Talk:Liberal logic

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

that new laws reducing the gun ownership rate by 0.1% and a subsequent election of a left wing government are not linked

What on earth is this tripe supposed to mean? If gun ownership had not been reduced by 0.1% a left wing government (where? how?) would not have been elected? How? By the 0.1% blockading the polling stations with their weaponry? Or is some other 'reason' bubbling away in the peculiar mind of whoever came up with such an argument? Sawneybeane 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It's obvious. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)
I see that this particular example of liberal logic has now been accepted as OK, and deleted from the article. -- Ferret Nice old chat 05:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)


"...the largely defensive weapon of gun..." I liked that actually! Feebasfactor 16:55, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Contents

"except the conservative truth"

I wonder if anyone would agree that reverting my edit from reading "conservative views" to reading "conservative truth," and thereby implying that "conservatism = THE TRUTH" can be interpreted in light of items 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 19 of the extremism article.Rodney 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "liberal bias" anyway. Feebasfactor 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)
ROFLMAO! Rodney 18:43, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Removed "poor"

A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only poor counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. HelpJazz 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. HelpJazz 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks for illustrating an embrace of liberal logic, HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--Aschlafly 18:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Please don't make accusations; you know I'm not a liberal, and it's kind of insulting to insinuate such. If you aren't going to allow discussion of the content then please lock down the page to save me the embarrasment.
I read the claims again and I guess I see where you are coming from. What I meant was that you can weaken a correlation by a good counterexample. I'm not sure if you can completely disprove it, but you are probably right there, as well.
"Causation" depends on how the English is structured. If you mean by "causation" that something is definitely or is assumed to be a causation, then you are right, it cannot be disproved by a counter example, because it is a causation and that's that. I took "causation" to mean the more general "claim of causation", since there really are no definite causations, in a technical sense. In this case, a claim of causation can be weakened by a counterexample, and even disproved, if the counterexample is good enough.
Off the top of my head this is what I mean: claim of causation: All crimes are caused by hate. Counterexample: This crime was caused by poverty. It's a poor example that I came up with off the top of my head, but clearly you can see that some claims of causation can be disproved by counterexamples. HelpJazz 18:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)
HelpJazz, you're adamant that liberal logic is correct, yet you can't show why. I never said that you are a liberal, but you are insistent on this point of liberal logic.
Your explanation above simply demonstrates that a counterexample can disprove a claim of universality about "all". That's obvious, and obviously not what this entry is talking about.--Aschlafly 19:10, 18 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure I could ever explain it to your satisfaction, so I guess there's no sense in trying. HelpJazz 19:12, 18 February 2008 (EST)
HelpJazz, please do yourself a favor, and reject the liberal logic. I'm not spending my time on this for my sake, but for yours. You have free will to persist in a mistake, or to abandon it.--Aschlafly 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks, I think. HelpJazz 01:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Move on

Just a thought - it seems perfectly reasonable (and logical) to "move on" past the misdeeds of an ex-president, and equally reasonable to be concerned about those of a possible future president - whether McCain or Obama. Are you sure this is a good example of "liberal logic"? Humblpi 13:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Um...

..."one athiest who remained sane"?! Are you implying that atheists, as a whole, are crazy? --transResident Transfanform! 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Many bright and famous people have gone crazy after embracing atheism, such as Nietzsche, and there is a correlation.--Aschlafly 19:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Can you show me one study that at all correlates atheism and mental insanity? AndrasK 21:21, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
No, of course he can't. Because there are not any. Even if we did assume that Nietzsche's insanity was brought on by his atheism the correlation coefficient would be infinitesimal and statistically insignificant. Correlation on its own does not equal causation. There has to be some sort of reproducible mechanism. And that's assuming that we give him the case of Nietzsche, whose mental breakdown was clearly not brought on by an atheistic philosophy. Dduerr 3 June 2008
Dduerr, have you looked yourself for studies? Lots of examples to suggest a correlation, and causation.--Aschlafly 17:14, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I have. And I didn't find any. Since you seem to have had more success perhaps you could provide the citations? Dduerr 3 June 2008

Fox News and Liberal Bias

I think it's almost impossible to find a liberal who believes that Fox News has a liberal bias. Also this entry contradicts the Liberal denial article, which states that liberals tend to refuse to recognise bias in the media. StatsMsn 21:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Um... (2.0)

Are any of the points on this article supposed to be the beliefs of liberals? Let me stress that I am not a liberal, but I do have friends that consider themselves liberals and this does not in any way resemble their beliefs.--JArneal 20:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)

You'll have to support your claim better than that. Or should we add your approach to the list?--Aschlafly 20:40, 7 November 2008 (EST)
As a Canadian, and thus, by American standards, a liberal, I can safely say this list is a load of bollocks and nothing more. HDCase 21:07, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly, you have to support your claim before you even make this topic an article. It isn't fair to group people together and insult them this way.
And why did you imply that I am a liberal? Please, tell me what it was about my statement that made me a liberal. I have already told you that I am not a liberal. Are you saying that just because I have some liberal friends I am a liberal? I'll have you know that I am at odds with them on many issues, and I debate with them almost every day! Do not put me in that group, especially since on this site, calling someone a "liberal" is an insult. --JArneal 20:15, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Remove "ideologically motivated" tags

By claiming that the tags are "ideologically motivated" does that mean you are claiming they are unnecessary? Don't hide behind "he's a liberal, he's a liberal" to avoid doing the work required by the Commandments. (Additionally, you *removed* citations by doing a blind reversion). Unless there's a real reason for undoing the fact tags, I'm going to put them back in (along with the other changes you removed). HelpJazz 18:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

If anyone thinks we need sources for these, please help me find quotes or examples. That is more productive than mass fact-tagging. --Ed Poor Talk 20:55, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I think the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:58, 15 November 2008 (EST)
When I see {{fact}}-tags being placed on nearly every bullet point in such a long article, it certainly seems to be ideologically motivated -- you are questioning the entire validity of the article, rather than just one ore two points. Many of these points are clear, so the fact tags betray a case of deliberate ignorance and we won't cave into that time-wasting tactic. -Foxtrot 06:30, 16 November 2008 (EST)
The difference comes when every statement where he didn't add a fact tag, he added a citation. Which leads me to believe that he did try to look for citations but couldn't find them. If he were truley "ideologically motivated" wouldn't it have been more effective for him to add fact tags to everything, so as to not provide any help to the opposing "ideology"? HelpJazz 13:13, 16 November 2008 (EST) PS: you said "you are questioning the entire validity of the article, rather than just one or two points" -- So? What if the entire validity of the article is at issue?
I can't speak for his motivations, I can only speak for the effect it creates: that the whole article looks like one big citation tag. The entire validity of this article is NOT at issue. It was created by Andy half a year ago and has had a large number of editors contribute and refine it. For Ferno to come in now and add cite tags to the majority of the points betrays either a wanton arrogance or else an ideological motivation. -Foxtrot 02:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)
The problem is, of the 31 points on there only 8 have citations. Many of the points just do not seem true to me, but I'm not going to get into an argument about that because I obviously have a bias. Many of them just appear to be insults and I wanted to see examples of them. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 23:51, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's disturbing that some people think that an article is accurate just because it has existed a long time. I think it's even more disturbing that some people think that an article is accurate just because a sysop created it. No one is infallible.
If an article has no sources to support it, it deserves to look like one big citation tag. Not that I would make an article that way. But for a user who has found a number of sources to be criticized for putting fact tags on the article he edited is unfair. The article has lasted long enough for someone to find sources, anyway. -- JArneal 18:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's disturbing that you are blowing around a lot of talk. If the points are inaccurate, then disprove them! Did you consider that maybe the reason the article isn't crowded with citation tags is because the points are accepted to be true and the questionable ones have already been removed? We don't need citations for statements like "the sky is blue" or "Hilary is a liberal". -Foxtrot 03:21, 19 November 2008 (EST)
I don't know how you would go about disproving some of these. For example, look at the second one. I have never heard anyone make that argument. You can't prove or disprove it because its just random. Besides, the commandments say everything that is posted should be true and verifiable. Logic dictates that this would mean when someone adds to an article they should use references, instead of just making it up off the top of their head. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 09:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Just to be clear, is this what you're referring to? insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it If so, I'm very surprised this is the one you chose. It's clear and flawed liberal reasoning: "don't knock it 'til you've tried it". They say you have to try something before you can have any basis for judging it as bad (funny how they don't pull this argument when a conservative judges something as good without having tried it). They will ask, "how can you ban homosexual marriage -- have you ever met a homosexual couple?" They might as well be asking "how can you ban homosexual activities -- have you ever seen them performed?" My natural revulsion at the thought gets labeled as "closed-mindedness", rather than the liberals being blamed for shoving such offensive thoughts into my face. This very "logic" is being used right here on Conservapedia, with the countless liberal-leaning editors who chastise me for having a negative opinion of Brokeback Mountain without having seen it. It's nonsense -- I know basically what the plot is about and can say with certainty that any positive picture it paints of homosexuality is nothing more than manipulation. But I'm being sidetracked -- to get back to the point, liberal logic diverts the issue at hand by flipping the playing field. Rather than them being on the offensive for making such wild points, they paint the conservative as being on the defensive for not wanting to open up to "new ideas". It's hogwash. -Foxtrot 04:22, 21 November 2008 (EST)
If the statements were accepted to be true, then you're right, they would not need citations. But they are not accepted to be true, which is the point of the argument in the first place! If FernoKlump thought it was common knowledge, he wouldn't have placed fact tags. -- JArneal 18:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
JArneal, you're ignoring the point I already made, which is that they were accepted to be true, by Andy and the dozens of editors who have edited it in the half year it's existed. Ferno and you seem to be the only ones who suddenly have a craving to fact-tag the whole article and the more you insist to the contrary, the more it looks like deliberate ignorance. -Foxtrot 04:25, 21 November 2008 (EST)

The Conservapedia Commandments state that everything must be true and verifiable. If it's common knowledge then it does not require a source, but in this case it is not common knowledge. For example, "insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it ". Is it common knowledge that liberals do this? Don't you think the point could be enhanced with an example or a source? And that is what I am asking for, sources. Not fact tags.Adding fact tags is a way of asking for sources. And don't confuse my motives. I have been contributing here since March and I have never vandalized or created parody. I have only worked toward bettering this wiki. So don't assume I am only a troll. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 10:36, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Don't worry, Klump. You do good work, and you're raising a good point. My complaint is directed only at those who use fact-tagging as a form of drive-by shooting. I may even have been the person who created the {{fact}} template; I don't remember clearly that far back. We frequently do need to back up what we think is right, and we conservatives should not expect a free ride. --Ed Poor Talk 11:03, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Klump, I found a cite for the point you isolated as particularly unverifiable. It took me less than a minute to find and I'm sure I could find other examples just as easily. This is not an obscure or tenuous point that is being made... -Foxtrot 14:09, 21 November 2008 (EST)
You may have misunderstood me. I didn't say that point was particularly unverifiable, I said that it wasn't common knowledge. Earlier in the conversation I'll admit that I said that you couldn't prove or disprove it, but the point I was trying to make was that there wasn't a way to disprove it. That was a mistake on my part. But thanks for finding that source. I've added two already at the same time I added the fact tags. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 18:37, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Tags and locks

If you spend more time justifying the placement of a fact tag than you spend on research, that is a great waste of effort. I thought this argument was settled earlier in this month, when I blocked someone for fact-tagging and then he outright refused to do any research.

Stop trying to "prove that CP is biased" with arguments on talk pages. You're not going to change anyone's mind that way. Unlike liberals, who go along with whatever their allies say, conservatives think for themselves and want to see evidence for claims.

So if you can disprove a conservative claim, by all means show some evidence that disproves it. Saying, "I already answered that" is as foolish as those academics interviewed on Expelled saying that evolution was "already proven".

Again: unlike liberals, we do not censor the opposing view here at CP. We provide them an opportunity to prove their case. I suggest you avail yourself of that opportunity. --Ed Poor Talk 08:37, 21 November 2008 (EST)

That might be difficult as long as the article is locked. . . . Sideways 08:44, 21 November 2008 (EST)
I just edited Liberal logic. Why did you say it was locked? --PoorBoy 08:51, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Apologies. I tried to edit it earlier & couldn't. Maybe the overnight editing lock was still on. Sideways 08:57, 21 November 2008 (EST)

No problem. I used this episode as food for thought and added 3 items to the liberal logic list. Hey, that reminds me: assuming that because something once was true, it still must be true. --Ed Poor Talk 09:00, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Incorrect, not inconsistent

I removed several points from this list describing statements that were incorrect, but not logically inconsistent (e.g., the "wondrous, pristine ANWR" point), which are probably more suited to the liberal lies article. CarlS from MN (Talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (EST)


Liberals and Homosexuality

One point says liberals claim you can go from heterosexual to homosexual but not the other way. All the liberals I've seen claim that you can't switch from one to the other (or vice versa) at all. They seem to think you're born one way and you'll stay that way all your life. I guess that's just more liberal logic for ya... BobSherman 21:46, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools