Changes

Liberal logic

879 bytes added, 21:28, February 18, 2010
Undo revision 755294 by [[Special:Contributions/CarlSfromMN|CarlSfromMN]] ([[User talk:CarlSfromMN|Talk]]) - Reverting edit by vandal
'''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]]).# Denouncing real or perceived censorship of Claiming that their viewpointsare being censored, while advocating for censorship of actually they are the ones censoring 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># 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
*anorexia
*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>
# Claiming Personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's personal experience as a premise in a logical argument.views on [[logic]]# Claiming Claim that it is "normal" to switch switching from having sex with women heterosexual to having sex with men[[homosexual]] is customary, but that doing the opposite switching back is somehow impossible.# Criticizing Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insisting insist on hyper-even more literalinterpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, often nonsensical interpretations [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in an attempt to find contradictions in the Biblesomeone's own home.</ref> # 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)# No matter what happens in the weather, which condemns [[hypocrisyglobal warming]] rather than judgments in general.</ref>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 deathremained sane)# Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike (for example, a Christian responding to the Sixth Commandment by saying, as in "But but I like [[Adultery|it]]!").# Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves for the same behavior.# 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 dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[George W. BushJohn McCain]].# Making highly Highly implausible conjectures, such as that assumption like "if [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find a the cure for paralysis before an alternative presents itself, 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>
# Supporting [[free Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.# Insisting on "tolerance when their views are threatened with " for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorshipfor anything which is [[Christian]].# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but arguing that their opponents' views must be suppressed.of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed# While allowing The belief that , although carrying an unborn child to term birth reduces the risk of breast cancer, denying that having an choosing [[abortion]] deprives one of this reduction in rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.# Claiming that Christian or religious cultural manifestations, such as classroom prayer, can cause harm Requesting increased spending by [[government]] to a societyreduce poverty, but ignoring any harm caused when actually poverty is increased by the dependency# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] cultural manifestations.culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm# 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># Claiming that non-marital premarital sex is acceptable and normal for Christians.# Claiming that an increasing taxes must 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.# Denying that widespread ownership of guns (often for , largely defensive use only) 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>
# Doing away with traditional tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.# Criticizing the U.S. for not intervening during the [[Rwandan Genocide]], but then claiming Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrongbut stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.# Justifying dissent by Believing/claiming that they do it out of patriotism (the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country''es actions rather than the country itself.g# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.'', # Stating "dissent is God of the highest form gaps" to justify atheism # Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of patriotism[[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!") (In reality, it is but then defending outright treasonous actsa 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># Arguing Claiming that because it is 's not known how fair to the world that [[GodAmerica]] did a certain thing, God must not existkeeps 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.
# Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, but then insisting that except when they are talking about the writers of the [[Bible]] were part of such a barbaric culture.
==References==
1,116
edits