Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal logic

2008-06-03T23:19:47Z

Dduerr: /* Um... */

''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? [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

: It's obvious. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:''"...the largely defensive weapon of gun..."'' I liked that actually! [[User:Feebasfactor|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.[[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "[[liberal bias]]" anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::ROFLMAO! [[User:Rodney|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for illustrating an embrace of [[liberal logic]], HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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"? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Um... ==

..."one athiest who remained sane"?! Are you implying that atheists, as a whole, are crazy? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Can you show me one study that at all correlates atheism and mental insanity? [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:21, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, of course he can't. Because there are not any. Even if we did assume that Nietzsche's insanity was brought on by his atheism the correlation coefficient would be infinitesimal and statistically insignificant. Correlation on its own does not equal causation. There has to be some sort of reproducible mechanism. And that's assuming that we give him the case of Nietzsche, whose mental breakdown was clearly not brought on by an atheistic philosophy. [[User:Dduerr|Dduerr]] 3 June 2008

:: Dduerr, have you looked yourself for studies? Lots of examples to suggest a correlation, and causation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:14, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I have. And I didn't find any. Since you seem to have had more success perhaps you could provide the citations? [[User:Dduerr|Dduerr]] 3 June 2008

==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. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberal logic

2008-06-03T20:34:11Z

Dduerr:

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by [[liberal]]s that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it
# 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>
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow 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. Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</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 remained sane)
# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# [[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]]
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[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>
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk

# insisting that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]

# insisting that premarital sex is fine

# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women collectively for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today. This does not mean to replace the word 'she' on the article for Hillary Clinton with 'he'.

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:oxymoron]]

Talk:Liberal logic

2008-06-03T20:25:47Z

Dduerr: /* Um... */

''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? [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

: It's obvious. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:''"...the largely defensive weapon of gun..."'' I liked that actually! [[User:Feebasfactor|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.[[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "[[liberal bias]]" anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::ROFLMAO! [[User:Rodney|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for illustrating an embrace of [[liberal logic]], HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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"? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Um... ==

..."one athiest who remained sane"?! Are you implying that atheists, as a whole, are crazy? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Can you show me one study that at all correlates atheism and mental insanity? [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:21, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, of course he can't. Because there are not any. Even if we did assume that Nietzsche's insanity was brought on by his atheism the correlation coefficient would be infinitesimal and statistically insignificant. Correlation on its own does not equal causation. There has to be some sort of reproducible mechanism. And that's assuming that we give him the case of Nietzsche, whose mental breakdown was clearly not brought on by an atheistic philosophy. [[User:Dduerr|Dduerr]] 3 June 2008

==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. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal logic

2008-06-03T20:22:54Z

Dduerr: /* Um... */

''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? [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

: It's obvious. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:''"...the largely defensive weapon of gun..."'' I liked that actually! [[User:Feebasfactor|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.[[User:Rodney|Rodney]] 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "[[liberal bias]]" anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::ROFLMAO! [[User:Rodney|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for illustrating an embrace of [[liberal logic]], HelpJazz. Can you explain how to back up your statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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"? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Um... ==

..."one athiest who remained sane"?! Are you implying that atheists, as a whole, are crazy? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Can you show me one study that at all correlates atheism and mental insanity? [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:21, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, of course he can't. Because there are not any. Even if we did assume that Nietzsche's insanity was brought on by his atheism the correlation coefficient would be infinitesimal and statistically insignificant. Correlation on its own does not equal causation. There has to be some sort of reproducible mechanism. And that's assuming that we give him the case of Nietzsche, whose mental breakdown was clearly not brought on by an atheistic philosophy.

==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. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)