Changes
junk science
# Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]])
# Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
# Frequent reliance on [[junk science]] such as [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity|relativity]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]] based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates [[creation]], and [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[creation science]] and [[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 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
