1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 179:
Line 179: + + + +
no edit summary
This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually <i>aren't</i> liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually <i>aren't</i> liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
== Example 34 ==
This footnote is confusing. I'm assuming this is a typo. Would seem to be an example of conservatives "demanding an apology". Don't know if it's an apology per se, but definitely doesn't strengthen the argument in any way.
== Uncyclopedia ==
== Uncyclopedia ==