Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal gullibility"

Revision as of 12:47, April 26, 2008

Some real problems here.

   * global warming must be caused by man

(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)

   * providing government health care for all will reduce illness

(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)

   * the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are

(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)

   * the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man! 

(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed. AdenJ 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Problems

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples. "taking away guns will prevent gun crime"

This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.

"global warming must be caused by man"

This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it is caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.

"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"

This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.

"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"

Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.

"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are

I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.

"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"

This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?

Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--TomMoore 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Entry confirmed

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And Michael Moore and others make a mint off of them.--Aschlafly 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten. AdenJ 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to atheists. And you've found no error with the statement about global warming in the entry here.--Aschlafly 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like AdenJ

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--TomMoore 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. LyleB 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. Doctor CB^{The Doctor is In} 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? LyleB 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think Michael Moore does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--Aschlafly 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) LyleB 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

ah yes, more craaaaaaziness

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though. AdenJ 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Suggestion

"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --RossC 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)