Changes

'''Liberal logic''' is a term used to describe arguments made by some [[liberal]]s that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical.  Here are some examples:

'''Liberal logic''' is a term used to describe arguments made by some [[liberal]]s that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical.  Here are some examples:

# Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]]; conservatives are also guilty of the reverse)

# Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]])

# Assuming something is false, merely because "only" a conservative said it (see [[ad hominem]]; conservatives are also guilty of the reverse)

# Assuming something is false, merely because "only" a conservative said it (see [[ad hominem]])

# Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents (conservatives are also guilty here, see Joe McCarthy)

# Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents

# 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>

#Insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That doesn't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:

#Insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:

*jumping off the Empire State Building

*jumping off the Empire State Building

*anorexia

*anorexia

*Shall I keep going?...

*Shall I keep going?...

Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade." </ref>

Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade." </ref>

# 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  

# 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.</ref> 

# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.

# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.

# No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it

# No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it

# Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!" (conservatives are also guilty here)

# [[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]] (conservatives are also guilty of this)

# Responding 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]]

# Highly implausible assumption like "if [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis, then would you support it?" (without any consideration of alternatives).

# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>

# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>

# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion. (conservatives are also guilty of this in reverse)

# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.

# Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]]. (conservatives are also guilty of this in reverse)

# Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]].

# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed

# The belief that, although carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.

# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm

# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm

# Claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>

# Claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>

# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.

# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.

# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>

# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>

# Doing away with tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use (this itself is a logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority)

# Doing away with tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.

# Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.

# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.

# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.

# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref> (this itself is a logical fallacy: appeal to numbers)

# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>

# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>

# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>

==References==

==References==