| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | # Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]]) | | # 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 | | # 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: | | #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 |
| Line 12: |
Line 11: |
| | *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> |
| − | # Personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]] | + | # Personal experience should dictate personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on real [[logic]] |
| | # 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.</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.</ref> |
| Line 20: |
Line 19: |
| | # Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!" | | # Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!" |
| | # Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves. | | # Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves. |
| | + | # 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> |
| | # [[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]] |
| | # 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). | | # 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). |