Difference between revisions of "Liberal logic"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(improved) |
(added point from Main Page talk re: Roe v. Wade) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime | # denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime | ||
# insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline | # insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline | ||
| + | # Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote | ||
(add to list) | (add to list) | ||
Revision as of 05:01, February 17, 2008
Liberal logic is an argument by a liberal that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:
- belief that a correlation (e.g., between atheism and suicide) can be disproved by a poor counterexample (e.g., one atheist who remained sane)
- free speech for anything and everything ... except the conservative truth
- insisting that an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
- requesting increased spending by government to reduce poverty, which actually poverty is increased by the dependency
- insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-Christian, while censorship for anything is Christian
- insisting that teaching abstinence does not reduce premarital sex
- denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
- insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline
- Even though the Supreme Court overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, Roe v. Wade cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote
(add to list)