Jump to: navigation, search

Non sequitur

1,388 bytes removed, 02:52, August 6, 2010
Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] ([[User talk:AJFrederickson|Talk]]) to last revision by [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]]
'''''Non sequitur''''' ([[Latin]]: "It does not follow") is a [[logical fallacy]] that involves arguing from a [[premise]] to a [[conclusion]] with a lack of sufficient connection between the two.<ref name=Whitman>Glenn Whitman, [ Non sequitur], ''Glen Whitman's Debate Page'', August 30, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.</ref> Non sequiturs are a common example of [[Liberal Style]].
== Definitions ==
The usual way to weaken a ''non sequitur'' is simply to show that two facts, that might happen to correlate, are in fact not mutually relevant. Of course, showing that the chain of implication is reversed--meaning that the first named fact actually follows from the second, rather than the second from the first--will cast even more serious doubt on the argument.
== Liberal non sequiturs ==
Most arguments by liberals invoke some sort of non sequitor, so attempting to systematically catalog all of them would be a monumental and impractical task. The following are a few select examples to demonstrate such arguments and why they fail.
*'''Religion''': "I have never seen God, therefore he does not exist."
::This extremely common argument barely merits response. First, the liberal shows ignorance by assuming that God can only be experienced visually. Second, claiming that just because the liberal doesn't believe, no one else has reason to, is illogical and demonstrates lack of an open mind.
*'''Politics''': "Increasing taxes will help the economy."
::The foundation of our entire economy is citizens spending money. Taxes take away that money, therefore Americans have less to spend. Less spending = slower economy. It's as simple as that.
*'''Science''': "Evolution is true because it has been scientifically proven."
::Scientific proof requires evidence, and lots of it, but evolution has none. Also, simply agreeing that something is true does not make it so. Aside from being factually wrong, the argument is structurally backward.
*'''Education''': "Public schools are effective institutions of learning because of their strong curricula."
::See [[Public schools]]. Enough said.
== References ==
NsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW