Difference between revisions of "Liberal logic"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Removed items that are no logical fallacies, added balanced comments/notes regarding others)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''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:
 
'''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]])
+
# Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see [[appeal to authority]]; conservatives are also guilty of the reverse)
−
# Assuming something is false, merely because "only" a conservative said it (see [[ad hominem]])
+
# Assuming something is false, merely because "only" a conservative said it (see [[ad hominem]]; conservatives are also guilty of the reverse)
−
# Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
+
# Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents (conservatives are also guilty here, see Joe McCarthy)
 
# 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>
 
# 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:
+
#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 doesn'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
 
*jumping off the Empire State Building
 
*anorexia
 
*anorexia
Line 13: Line 13:
 
*Shall I keep going?...
 
*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>
 
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>
−
# Personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
 
 
# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
 
# 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.</ref> 
+
# Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology  
 
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
 
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
 
# No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
 
# 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)
+
# Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!" (conservatives are also guilty here)
−
# Responding 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]] (conservatives are also guilty of this)
−
# Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves.
 
−
# [[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]]
 
−
# Highly implausible assumption like "if [[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>
 
# [[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>
−
# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
+
# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion. (conservatives are also guilty of this in reverse)
−
# Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]].
+
# Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting censorship for anything which is [[Christian]]. (conservatives are also guilty of this in reverse)
−
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
 
−
# The belief that, although carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.
 
−
# Requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
 
 
# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
 
# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] 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 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>
Line 35: Line 28:
 
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
 
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive 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>
 
# 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 tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.
+
# Doing away with tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use (this itself is a logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority)
−
# Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.
 
 
# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
 
# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
−
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
+
# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a 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> (this itself is a logical fallacy: appeal to numbers)
−
# Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism 
 
−
# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a 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>
 
 
# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps 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>
 
# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps 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, except when they are talking about the writers of the [[Bible]].
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 12:41, October 20, 2009

Liberal logic is a term used to describe arguments made by some liberals that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

  1. Assuming something is true, merely because another liberal said so (see appeal to authority; conservatives are also guilty of the reverse)
  2. Assuming something is false, merely because "only" a conservative said it (see ad hominem; conservatives are also guilty of the reverse)
  3. Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents (conservatives are also guilty here, see Joe McCarthy)
  4. Frequent reliance on circular reasoning, as in demanding censorship of intelligent design while simultaneously citing the resulting silence as proof against it[1]
  5. Insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it[2]
  6. Claim that switching from heterosexual to homosexual is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
  7. Criticize Christians for literal interpretations of Genesis, but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the liberal ideology
  8. Insisting that the Bible literally prohibits judging anything.
  9. No matter what happens in the weather, global warming caused it
  10. Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!" (conservatives are also guilty here)
  11. 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 (conservatives are also guilty of this)
  12. Barack Obama on Afghanistan: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees![3]
  13. Free speech for anything and everything ... except the conservative truth, and religion. (conservatives are also guilty of this in reverse)
  14. Insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-Christian, while promoting censorship for anything which is Christian. (conservatives are also guilty of this in reverse)
  15. Claiming that an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
  16. Claiming that teaching abstinence does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.[4]
  17. Claiming that premarital sex is acceptable and normal.
  18. Claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,[5] when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
  19. Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
  20. 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.)[6]
  21. Doing away with tradition language (such as "he" to refer to men and women), despite centuries of previous use (this itself is a logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority)
  22. Believing/claiming that the United Nations is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
  23. Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of ANWR needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) [7] (this itself is a logical fallacy: appeal to numbers)
  24. Claiming that it's not fair to the world that America keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. [8]

References

  1. ↑ See, e.g., Richard Sternberg.
  2. ↑ 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 doesn'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
    • drunk driving
    • smoking crack or meth
    • child molestation
    • 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."
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml
  5. ↑ http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766
  6. ↑ See Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine.
  7. ↑ ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture Townhall.com, July 24, 2008
  8. ↑ Freedom and the View From Obamaland American Spectator, July 1, 2008
v • d • e
Liberal Characteristics and Traits
Ideology
Policy
Tools
Traits
Other
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_logic&oldid=712127"