Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
132 bytes added ,  14:43, May 11, 2008
new point 1, inspired by discussion on Main Page
Line 1: Line 1:  
'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by [[liberal]]s that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical.  Here are some examples:
 
'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by [[liberal]]s that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical.  Here are some examples:
    +
# insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it
 
# frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[intelligent design]] while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
 
# frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[intelligent design]] while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
   
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
 
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
 
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.  Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
 
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.  Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
 
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
 
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
 
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
 
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
 +
# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
 
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
 
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
 
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
 
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789

edits

Navigation menu