Difference between revisions of "Liberal logic"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(an example) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* Inability to understand [[causality]], identify the causes and with rational and logical stastistics deduce the effects they produce. For example, rape skyrocketing in the UK after the mid 1990s is rationally and logically a result of [[gun control]] introduced by the British Government and not a result of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act as [[liberal]]s irrationally and illogically claim. | * Inability to understand [[causality]], identify the causes and with rational and logical stastistics deduce the effects they produce. For example, rape skyrocketing in the UK after the mid 1990s is rationally and logically a result of [[gun control]] introduced by the British Government and not a result of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act as [[liberal]]s irrationally and illogically claim. | ||
| + | * that increasing taxes must increase government revenue | ||
| + | * increasing spending by government must reduce poverty | ||
| + | * prohibiting guns must reduce crime | ||
| + | * teaching abstinence must not reduce premarital sex | ||
| + | |||
| + | (add to list) | ||
| + | [[category:politics]] | ||
Revision as of 16:11, February 15, 2008
Liberal logic is an argument that has logical appeal to a liberal, but is nonsensical. Let's build a list:
- Inability to understand causality, identify the causes and with rational and logical stastistics deduce the effects they produce. For example, rape skyrocketing in the UK after the mid 1990s is rationally and logically a result of gun control introduced by the British Government and not a result of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act as liberals irrationally and illogically claim.
- that increasing taxes must increase government revenue
- increasing spending by government must reduce poverty
- prohibiting guns must reduce crime
- teaching abstinence must not reduce premarital sex
(add to list)