Talk:Liberal logic

that new laws reducing the gun ownership rate by 0.1% and a subsequent election of a left wing government are not linked

What on earth is this tripe supposed to mean? If gun ownership had not been reduced by 0.1% a left wing government (where? how?) would not have been elected? How? By the 0.1% blockading the polling stations with their weaponry? Or is some other 'reason' bubbling away in the peculiar mind of whoever came up with such an argument? Sawneybeane 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It's obvious. -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 17:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I see that this particular example of liberal logic has now been accepted as OK, and deleted from the article. -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 05:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)

"...the largely defensive weapon of gun..." I liked that actually! Feebasfactor 16:55, 15 February 2008 (EST)

"except the conservative truth"

I wonder if anyone would agree that reverting my edit from reading "conservative views" to reading "conservative truth," and thereby implying that "conservatism = THE TRUTH" can be interpreted in light of items 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 19 of the extremism article.Rodney 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "liberal bias" anyway. Feebasfactor 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)

ROFLMAO! Rodney 18:43, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Removed "poor"

A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only poor counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. HelpJazz 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. HelpJazz 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for illustrating an embrace of liberal logic, HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--Aschlafly 18:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Please don't make accusations; you know I'm not a liberal, and it's kind of insulting to insinuate such. If you aren't going to allow discussion of the content then please lock down the page to save me the embarrasment.

I read the claims again and I guess I see where you are coming from. What I meant was that you can weaken a correlation by a good counterexample. I'm not sure if you can completely disprove it, but you are probably right there, as well.

"Causation" depends on how the English is structured. If you mean by "causation" that something is definitely or is assumed to be a causation, then you are right, it cannot be disproved by a counter example, because it is a causation and that's that. I took "causation" to mean the more general "claim of causation", since there really are no definite causations, in a technical sense. In this case, a claim of causation can be weakened by a counterexample, and even disproved, if the counterexample is good enough.

Off the top of my head this is what I mean: claim of causation: All crimes are caused by hate. Counterexample: This crime was caused by poverty. It's a poor example that I came up with off the top of my head, but clearly you can see that some claims of causation can be disproved by counterexamples. HelpJazz 18:19, 18 February 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, you're adamant that liberal logic is correct, yet you can't show why. I never said that you are a liberal, but you are insistent on this point of liberal logic.

Your explanation above simply demonstrates that a counterexample can disprove a claim of universality about "all". That's obvious, and obviously not what this entry is talking about.--Aschlafly 19:10, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I could ever explain it to your satisfaction, so I guess there's no sense in trying. HelpJazz 19:12, 18 February 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, please do yourself a favor, and reject the liberal logic. I'm not spending my time on this for my sake, but for yours. You have free will to persist in a mistake, or to abandon it.--Aschlafly 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks, I think. HelpJazz 01:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Move on

Just a thought - it seems perfectly reasonable (and logical) to "move on" past the misdeeds of an ex-president, and equally reasonable to be concerned about those of a possible future president - whether McCain or Obama. Are you sure this is a good example of "liberal logic"? Humblpi 13:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Um...

..."one athiest who remained sane"?! Are you implying that atheists, as a whole, are crazy? --_transResident Transfan^form! 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Many bright and famous people have gone crazy after embracing atheism, such as Nietzsche, and there is a correlation.--Aschlafly 19:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Fox News and Liberal Bias

I think it's almost impossible to find a liberal who believes that Fox News has a liberal bias. Also this entry contradicts the Liberal denial article, which states that liberals tend to refuse to recognise bias in the media. StatsMsn 21:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)