| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | '''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: |
| | | | |
| − | # Assume something is true, merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see [[appeal to authority]]) | + | # No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] must have caused it |
| | + | # Insist on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]] |
| | + | # Claim something is true merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see [[appeal to authority]]) |
| | # Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents | | # Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents |
| | + | # Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible |
| | #Insist 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: | | #Insist 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 15: |
| | 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> |
| | # Pretend to base their opinion on personal experience, which may be atypical, when real [[logic]] would be a better basis | | # Pretend to base their opinion on personal experience, which may be atypical, when real [[logic]] would be a better basis |
| − | # 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> # 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) |
| − | # 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> | |
| − | # 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) | |
| | # 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. |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
| | # [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion. | | # [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion. |
| | # Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything. | | # Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything. |
| − | # 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 | | # [[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. | | # 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. |