Difference between revisions of "Liberal logic"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(trim)
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:
  
−
# 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
+
# Denouncing real or perceived censorship of their viewpoints, while advocating for censorship of their opponents.
−
# Frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in demanding censorship of [[intelligent design]] while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
+
# Frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]].
−
#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
 
*anorexia
 
*anorexia
Line 12: Line 12:
 
*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]]
+
# Claiming one's personal experience as a premise in a logical argument.
−
# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
+
# Claiming that it is "normal" to switch from having sex with women to having sex with men, but that doing the opposite is 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> 
+
# Criticizing [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insisting on hyper-literal, often nonsensical interpretations in an attempt to find contradictions in the Bible.
−
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
+
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.<ref>Rather, it warns that "With whatever judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" (Matthew 7:2), which condemns [[hypocrisy]] rather than judgments in general.</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 died a natural death)
−
# 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 expression of personal like or dislike (for example, a Christian responding to the Sixth Commandment by saying, "But I like [[Adultery|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 for the same behavior.
−
# Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves.
+
# Stating that [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of Democratic politicians such as [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should ruminate endlessly on the perceived misdeeds of Republicans, such as [[George W. Bush]].
−
# [[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]]
+
# Making highly implausible conjectures, such as that [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find a cure for paralysis before an alternative presents itself.
−
# 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).
+
 
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
 
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
−
# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
+
# Supporting [[free speech]] and tolerance when their views are threatened with censorship, but arguing that their opponents' views must be suppressed.
−
# Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]].
+
# While allowing that carrying an unborn child to term reduces the risk of breast cancer, denying that having an [[abortion]] deprives one of this reduction in risk.
−
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
+
# Claiming that Christian or religious cultural manifestations, such as classroom prayer, can cause harm to a society, but ignoring any harm caused by [[atheistic]] cultural manifestations.
−
# 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.
+
# Claiming that [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>
−
# Requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
+
# Claiming that non-marital sex is acceptable and normal for Christians.
−
# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
+
# Claiming that an increase in taxes always increases government revenue,<ref>http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766</ref> when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
−
# Claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>
+
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns (often for defensive use only) can reduce crime.
−
# Claiming that premarital sex is acceptable and normal.
+
−
# Claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,<ref>http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766</ref> when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
+
−
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
+
 
# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
 
# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
−
# Doing away with tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.
+
# Doing away with traditional language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.
−
# Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.  
+
# Criticizing the U.S. for not intervening during the [[Rwandan Genocide]], but then claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong.
−
# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
+
# Justifying dissent by claiming that they do it out of patriotism (''e.g.'', "dissent is the highest form of patriotism") but then defending outright treasonous acts.
−
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
+
# Arguing that because it is not known how [[God]] did a certain thing, God must not exist.
−
# Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism 
+
−
# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>
+
−
# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>
+
 
# Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
 
# Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
−
# Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, except when they are talking about the writers of the [[Bible]].
+
# Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, but then insisting that the writers of the [[Bible]] were part of such a barbaric culture.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 19:59, February 18, 2010

Liberal logic is a term used to describe arguments made by some liberals that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

  1. Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see appeal to authority).
  2. Denouncing real or perceived censorship of their viewpoints, while advocating for censorship of their opponents.
  3. Frequent reliance on circular reasoning.
  4. Insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it.[1]
  5. Claiming one's personal experience as a premise in a logical argument.
  6. Claiming that it is "normal" to switch from having sex with women to having sex with men, but that doing the opposite is impossible.
  7. Criticizing Christians for literal interpretations of Genesis, but then insisting on hyper-literal, often nonsensical interpretations in an attempt to find contradictions in the Bible.
  8. Insisting that the Bible literally prohibits judging anything.[2]
  9. Belief that a correlation and/or causation (e.g., between atheism and suicide) can be disproved by a counterexample (e.g., one atheist who died a natural death)
  10. Responding to a logical comment or question with an expression of personal like or dislike (for example, a Christian responding to the Sixth Commandment by saying, "But I like it!").
  11. Never admitting shame for liberal behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves for the same behavior.
  12. Stating that Americans should "move on" past the misconduct of Democratic politicians such as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but should ruminate endlessly on the perceived misdeeds of Republicans, such as George W. Bush.
  13. Making highly implausible conjectures, such as that embryonic stem cell research will find a cure for paralysis before an alternative presents itself.
  14. Barack Obama on Afghanistan: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees![3]
  15. Supporting free speech and tolerance when their views are threatened with censorship, but arguing that their opponents' views must be suppressed.
  16. While allowing that carrying an unborn child to term reduces the risk of breast cancer, denying that having an abortion deprives one of this reduction in risk.
  17. Claiming that Christian or religious cultural manifestations, such as classroom prayer, can cause harm to a society, but ignoring any harm caused by atheistic cultural manifestations.
  18. Claiming that abstinence does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.[4]
  19. Claiming that non-marital sex is acceptable and normal for Christians.
  20. Claiming that an increase in taxes always increases government revenue,[5] when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
  21. Denying that widespread ownership of guns (often for defensive use only) can reduce crime.
  22. Claiming that Roe v. Wade cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by liberal deceit.)[6]
  23. Doing away with traditional language (such as "he" to refer to men and women), despite centuries of previous use.
  24. Criticizing the U.S. for not intervening during the Rwandan Genocide, but then claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into Iraq was wrong.
  25. Justifying dissent by claiming that they do it out of patriotism (e.g., "dissent is the highest form of patriotism") but then defending outright treasonous acts.
  26. Arguing that because it is not known how God did a certain thing, God must not exist.
  27. Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
  28. Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, but then insisting that the writers of the Bible were part of such a barbaric culture.

References

  1. ↑ 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
    • anorexia
    • drunk driving
    • smoking crack or meth
    • child molestation
    • 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."
  2. ↑ Rather, it warns that "With whatever judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" (Matthew 7:2), which condemns hypocrisy rather than judgments in general.
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml
  5. ↑ http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766
  6. ↑ See Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine.
v • d • e
Liberal Characteristics and Traits
Ideology
Policy
Tools
Traits
Other
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_logic&oldid=755294"