5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: + + + +
→Major Changes Needed: new section
== Liberals and Homosexuality ==
== 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... [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 21:46, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
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... [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 21:46, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
== Major Changes Needed ==
Most of the examples of liberal logic which are listed are not arguments at all. No argument, at least according to Aristotelian term logic, can have just one premise. For instance, the following examples are not arguments: arguments 5, 11, 12, 28, 29, 30, 38, and 43. To give a specific instance of what I mean, consider example #29: "Claiming that teaching abstinence does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease." To simply assert such a proposition is not in itself an argument. Rather, if anything, liberals would make an argument ''for'' such a proposition. As I see it, either these need to be called something other than "arguments made by some liberals" (such as instead: 'claims for which liberals fallaciously argue) or most of the examples need to be removed (because they aren't examples of any argument whatsoever).