THE 10 MOST COMMON LOGICAL FALLACIES MADE BY LIBERALS!!!
Offline THE 10 MOST COMMON LOGICAL FALLACIES MADE BY LIBERALS!!!
Consistent liberalism is outside the realm of reason. The Post-Modern era is an example. Truth absolutely is impossible, and thus no purpose, truth, beauty, and justice is absolutely possible as well. And while truth is absolutely unattainable, the absolute truth that it is unattainable seems to self refute again, the post-modern motif of consistent liberalism and pagan philosophy.
This has come as a death to our culture regarding art, music, cinema, philosophy, and overall goodness. This is the result of all consistent liberalism and pagan philosophy, the death of the good, and the reign of that which is evil.
We see this in China. Censor everything against the state, via the anti-rational nature of the subject. China knew that if people were to reason and think logically, then communism and atheism via a rational system of thought would perish. This is consistent to what I'm talking about. Since consistent liberalism is via non-reason, then logically they must commit the logical fallacy of baculum, the logical fallacy of FORCE.
1) Argumentum ad hominem abusive (Name Calling)
----Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about because he is addicted to pain killer pills and he's fat.
2) Equivocation (The same term used via two different meanings).
----Since Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, he wants America to fail
----(Here we see Obama and America being used via equivocation).
3) Red Herring (Changing the Subject So as to Avoid the Question)
----QUESTION: Is Obama a Marxist?
----ANSWER: I believe politics is for the good of mankind.
4) Straw Man (An Argument Attacked That's Not Argued).
This seems to be Obama's favorite,
Statement: You just committed a logical fallacy.
Why do you believe in UFOs? You're crazy.
5) argumentum ad misericordiam (using pity to disprove your argument - also could be an ad hominem).
----STATEMENT: America should shoot Osama Bin Laden right between the eyes and kill terrorists.
----RESPONSE: You're mean, we're suppose to love everybody.
6) post hoc ergo propter hoc (because of this, then that)
----Because Glenn Beck thinks the Obama Administration is Socialist,
----then all of Fox network believes Obama is a Socialist.
7) False Dilemma (False Dichotomy) Only allow for two options.
----Glenn Beck is either a Republican or a Domcrat
----Obama is either a Marxist or a Capitalist.
8) ignorantiam elich (Appear to Ignorance).
----Because Socialism is wrong Capitalism is right.
----Because Obama is a liberal, my position is right since I'm a conservative.
9) Slippery Slope (A Snowball of Unrelated Questions and Statements to distract from the issue at hand)
----QUESTION: Are you for or against abortion
----RESPONSE: I believe we should all respect each other, nobody is going to understand another person's feelings, you should think about being in the other persons shoes, what about rape, what happens if we have to use hangers again? etc, etc, etc.
10) argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity)
----the Liberals are the ones that won the election, so you may as well go along with their policies.
Liberals can't help it. They are so evil and full of lies, that logical fallacies just come out all over the place. Watch MSNBC with a book on logic, turn to the informal logical fallacies, and you may have almost the whole list in a few shows.
When you start studying logic, you will begin to see that the reprobate can't stop with the logical fallacies. And, when a conservative really knows how to explain, examine, and expose their cause via a successful refutation against the pagan enemy, Liberals will virtually ALWAYS resort to logical fallacy #1 over, and over again. .
When the Liberals start calling you names, you know you are on the right track.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Yeah, and you NEVER find logical fallacies on the right.....
Political discourse is full of logical fallacies. This isn't news. Now you should take your list of logical fallacies and compare them to your own threads. You will find that you have committed many of them yourself.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Genetic fallacy: You are born evil because Adam and Eve ate a magical Piaget-infused pomegranate.
Adhominem: Your genetic sin makes you worthless and hateful in the eyes of god. He hates your sin so much he cannot see you, he can only see your sin. But if you repent all he will see is jesus! (but still not worthless, filthy you).
Fallacy from Force: Believe in god with no evidence or you will be burned in a fire forever.
There are more but I'm going to read a book instead....
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
And then right after your list your first sentence is:
Hmmm...
Since there are no valid arguments for God, religions has no valid epistemology - it is based on purely subjective ideas of meaning.
Only by reference to reality, which requires empirical study, can we even partially break away from the delusions of God belief, and other figments of our imagination, and the errors of Aristotle and Plato.
Christian doctrine is one giant confabulation of myth held together by a vast network of logical fallacies.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
ANSWERS,
Hi Beyond Saving,
You do find logical fallacies on the right all the time. Just like you find uneducated Christians getting beat up because they are the product of our post-modern liberal school system. You liberals have done a good job with this. But this is all discussed in the Bible, and is what we would expect to find in these last days.
____________________________
Hi Atheistextremeist.
Those examples are from the pagan Roman Catholics. It did not quite work that way with the Puritans. They could have left, but they were still wrong in regards to the occult. But regarding pagan Roman Catholicism, there were people like me burning right next to the others. Rome is evil.
_____________________________
Hi NoMoreCrazy,
In Logic, there is argumentum ad hominem abusive, and argumentum ad hominem. The first one is a logical fallacy, the second one is not as long as truth correspond to the claim. And since you don't know what truth is as an atheist, you can consistently neither refute or non-refute. You're stuck in the mud. However, these are the rules of logic, and since truth is on my side, I remain logically valid.
The Bible talks about the evil of the wicked. Jeremiah 17:3, Isaiah 64:6, etc, etc, etc. So, since this is my epistemological normative, then logically the deduction applies to you as an atheistic liberal. All atheists MUST be liberal, if they are to be consistent.
__________________________
Hi BobSpence1
I've given logical arguments for God. Let me help you with logic.
An argument can be valid, and inaccurate. An argument can be invalid and inaccurate. Validity is the flow of the argument. But you need validity and soundness. So while an opponent like me can have a valid argument, the disagreement we have is regarding the soundness of my argument.
And I have made the argument, and I can do it again, if you like.
Empiricism is a logical fallacy. David Hume, the great Empiricist was very discouraged and eventually became a Skeptic. Not to mention Kant's refutation. David Hume was set back by time and space.
You see, if you are right next to a table, the table is large. If you are 1000ft from the table, the table is smaller. If you are 20 miles away from the table, the table is invisible. So then, at what point in space and time do we infer the empirical perspective upon the object to discern knowledge? Since this cannot be answered empirically, then empiricism fails.
Not to mention that time and space are non-empirical themselves. I have more examples of empirical absurdity if you like. Empiricism is of today via a flip of the coin toss, since atheists are stuck, and cannot know logically anything.
Your last claim was not an argument. I have a valid argument to say otherwise. Would you like me to repeat it?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Could you please define what you mean by "liberal"? There's members on here from countries around the world, and they all use the term "liberal" very differently. Do you mean classical liberal, a member of the U.K. Liberal Democrats party, a liberal member of the U.S. Democratic Party or Canadian Liberal Party, a progressive liberal, a person who does not mind changes in the status quo, a person who uses a lot of something, or a liberal in the way that some particular country uses the term?
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
Jean, see my response in another thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/27486#comment-320549
I may not have time to respond more specifically to your more precent posts for a day or so.
I have much real world work to do today, and I wish to have time to compose a suitably thought-out response.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Okay this was funny, so I really hope your not serious
, now if you are serious you cannot be taken seriously. The whole statement is just downright crazy. You say liberals can't help it, they are so evil and full of lies. Okay I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and I find your statement downright funny. I really hope you are just having fun here because if you are serious I pity you.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
Hi EL,
Well, etymologically, the meaning was good. However, over time, as language does, the meaning as evolved via the means of usus loquendi. Now it has to do with progress towards a complete pagan society. The logical consequences to this would be Darwinian Evolution, Death (Abortion), Communism (darkness). The Progress towards the total and utter destruction of Christianity for a "Transnational" economy and system. The progress is always towards more and more consistent paganism and less and less away from Biblical Christianity.
Now of course, that is somewhat what of a denotative definition, I can expand on this connotatively if you'd like. But I am speaking of American Liberalism similar to the U.K Fabian Society, only cross that over into America and with Theodore Roosevelt.
The more consistent one is as a liberal/progressive, the more dark, evil and pagan they truly are.
______________________________
Hi BobSpense1,
No problem. You can always email me too. It's good to think before you answer. Take your time.
____________________________
Hi Rev. Willie,
Ahh, a Libertarian. Well, how can Bill Maher be a Libertarian and Beck at the same time without violating the law of contradiction? By liberal, I am speaking of progressives. Though you are wrong regarding your political view of being socially liberal.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Hm, I see (although no one has ever defined liberalism that way besides you, I'll take it for the sake of argument). And pray tell what, if anything, the history of paganism and the history of liberalism have in common. Where is the link? And what do you mean by paganism? do you mean actual paganism, atheism, or just anything that isn't Christian?
A scientific theory, not a political stance.
There's many other different types of death.
What does a theory about the overthrow of the bourgeoisie via a revolution that would lead to the public ownership of the means of production have anything to do with the absence of light?
There you go.
A person's political ideology can influence his actions, but from my experience there are immoral people all over the political spectrum.
What a person chooses to call himself has nothing to do with whether or not their positions are actually consistent with other people who hold the same label. I'm a libertarian, and I don't think either Bill Maher or Glenn Beck is consistent with libertarianism. I could turn the question around on you too: How can Kierkegaard and Fred Phelps both be theists at the same time without contradicting each other? How can thousands of different churches call themselves Christian if they all interpret the same book differently?
What is wrong about the socially liberal view, and what evidence can you provide of this?
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
Translation:
"Anyone who doesn't follow my god is evil"
Thanks for the laugh though.
Next time you talk to yourself(oops, I ment "daddy"
tell him(yourself) I said he needs to pick a better representitive to fight his battles for him.
I find it funny that an alleged all powerful being would need to use humans as minions to do work he could do himself. And lucky you, just happened to be the "chosen one" to spread his(your delusion).
Now if you'll excuse me I have some puppies to kick and some kittens to barbecue.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You (Jean) still have yet to define "liberal" as anything other than "Pagan." Very impressive logic. If liberals are pagan, then yes, liberals are pagan. Congratulations.
And of course, if you define pagan as non-Christian, and define Christian as true faith in God, and God as all things good, then, logically: (assume "/=" is "is not" ) :
Good = God
God = Christian
Liberal = Pagan
Pagan /= Christian
Liberal /= good
A Liberal is essentially a libertarian (negative rights only, emphasis on individual liberty) who acknowledges that when some have deficiency and others have surplus, those with deficiency have a positive right to the resources of the surplus, only so far as it is necessary to ensure equality, while minimizing impact on liberty.
Basically:
Libertarian: Liberty is the primary value. People own themselves, their labor, and the product of their labor, and have a right to have that protected (that includes freedom of speech, etc.)
Socialist: Equality is the primary value. People cannot be free if some are given certain advantages, while others are not even given the basic tools to survive. Thus people should redistribute everything, and all should share and be equal, regardless of what that means to liberty or individual freedom.
Liberal: Liberty and equality should be balanced, such that everyone is given the opportunity to seek equality (as far as is necessary to ensure a fair chance), while at the same time no one is deprived of certain, necessary rights.
This, fundamentally, is what liberal means. In american politics, it is taken to mean "progressive reform, requiring increased size and power of government."
But even this, ultimately, is an attempt at achieving the above.
If you disagree, by all means, show me a different definition for liberal.
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
Hello,
Would you like a Connotative definition, or a denotative definition, or an ostensive definition?
lol.
Let's start with connotative. I can move to the others for fun.
The etymological meaning the the word was noble. The concept of liberal had to do with freedom and the liberation of FROM something. That something or non-liberation would have been non-freedom. (Since I am not asked for the etymology, I move to the modern meaning and make this brief.)
Via the language principle of usus loquendi, the concept of the term has changed. It has now changed into a meaning of non-freedom. Slavery. And Selfishness.
The liberal of today is one that is for big government and big everything. Via the reference to freedom via our founders, they hate our founders, and they decide to give utter control to the government.
This is due to their evil nature being extremely selfish. Perhaps because their mommy didn't hug them enough or whatever reason. Now they want the government to be their mommy and give them things. Money, housing, Commerce, everything. They want it to be given to them or spoon fed from the government so that when the government asks them who is their daddy, the liberals say, "you are government/Obama."
Liberals also hate the constitution. Since the Constitution is that of a document about freedom, they wish to spoons of yummies fed to them instead. The problem of this extreme stupidity, is that they trust the government as GOOD. They will always give them a bed time story, and kiss them before they go to sleep.
This is not the case since man is absolutely evil. So power of the evil allows for evil to be more pervasive, but they don't care, give me me me me me. I want I want I want. Mommy Mommy Mommy (e.g. health reform). A bunch of brats of the No Generation growing up as wimps. These brats that never had a strong Man for a father figure in their lives are trying to compensate for that via big government.
Now in reference to "RIGHTS," they also believe the government grants them rights. Essentially (they don't admit this), the government is their god. This is neat for them since they love communism and socialism. So they worship the government and wait eagerly for the government to grant them rights. Not knowing that according to the constitution and Christianity and freedom, rights are granted from God and God alone.
But more specifically, the area of:
Civil Rights (A noble cause at first, now a means to demand socialism as an attack. If you disagree, you're a racist
Economy (Free Healthcare, Free Housing, Free Cars, Free Gas Free good, free everything. Or equally very cheap. They also wish to destroy the middle class and tax the hell out of the rich. Thus making a poverty class and a rich class (like China today). But they think (ignorantly that the poor class will be equal).
Education (To legislate from the bench, to program kids into communist socialites, the Victim Card (oh, I am owie, so give me a house).
Energy (The religion of "Green." (Global Warming). Again, a "religion" of a tactic or total mommy government control and regulations
Elections: The Liberal will lie, cheat steal, the ends justify the means, whatever it takes. Again, since there are no morals, then there are no consequences for my actions.
Immigration Reform (Liberals hate capitalism and everything that is Christian, so they wish to destroy the country so that it will collapse into communism. One of the way to do this is full and complete amnesty. To hide their agenda, they go back to #1 tactic of civil rights. They wish for us to have no nuclear weapons, or energy or really anything. They are the parasites of our country.
More could be said about these parasites, but this is sufficient. They are the result of the Liberal attack on America and don't even know it. The liberals have been pushing for a generation like this for over a hundred years (if not longer). The culture was really hard to break, but the 1960s sex cult was the explosion of liberal parasites, and it oozed unto our culture.
Liberals are embarrassed of their term liberal, so they sometimes use the term Progressive. They switch back and fourth as a tactic since they are ashamed of their political thinking. It's all strategy of the goal, and has nothing to do with truth, honor, justice, and beauty.
I gave you SOME definitions of both the connotative and denotative. We have yet to discuss Foreign Policy, "Science," EuGenics", Open Government, etc. A consistent liberal would like to murder people to make a perfect race. People must provide proof that they are worth to keep alive. It's all about productivity, and in the end, is the death of the very means of humanity itself.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You seem to be confusing Liberalism with utilitarianism. "The end justifies the means" is a fallacy derived from the Utilitarian school of thought, not the liberal. I have morals, but I believe in progressive reform and equal opportunity. You are mixing definition and conclusion, never giving a finite definition for liberal that doesn't include some charged term or concept designed to essentially define liberalism as evil, so that you are effectively still saying that evil is evil. Again, congrats on figuring that out.
You define liberalism as selfishness and slavery? You say "X=selfishness and slavery" and then "x=evil" which is hard to argue, because of course selfishness and slavery are evil. But we are talking about different variables, just with the same name. I am a liberal, in that I believe in balancing individual liberty with universal equality, via redistributing some of the resources of those who do not need them to those who absolutely do, so far as is necessary to allow equality of opportunity to everyone, but not so far as to restrict the individual freedom of those who have more than they need, as that would cause inequality of opportunity anyways, and would serve no purpose.
So basically, liberals hate our founding fathers, they hate Jesus, and they hate the truth? They hate freedom, equality, and everything good? Liberals are embarrassed to call themselves liberals, and would like to murder people purely for the sake of making a perfect race.
What dictionary are you using? Was it perhaps published by a company called "The Onion?" Or written by a man named "Stephen Colbert?"
First define your terms, THEN make your claims. Mixing the two makes talking to you unnecessarily tiresome. Build first off of accepted assumptions, called "axioms," about liberalism, to prove your points. If you would like instruction in rational processes and the art of logic, please just ask. I would be happy to oblige within a few days.
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
About a third of the time I identify as a Libertarian. The other two thirds I tend to favor an enlightened despotism. I support the Nature Conservancy but am not a tree hugger. I think that abortion should be a decision made by the couple that conceived the fetus. I think that drugs should be legal because stupid people should be allowed to make stupid decisions and suffer the consequences. I favor gun control in that adequate control of a gun means hitting the target you are aiming at. I am in favor of the death penalty in that a company that causes damage to a group of people by losing millions of dollars and thousands of jobs have committed a crime against humanity and should be punished accordingly. I think that new age socialists that continually bash free market economy should pick up a recent history book and see how miserable socialism tends to get. I feel that I owe those less fortunate than myself exactly nothing, but am quite generous to anyone that makes an honest attempt to better themselves. I feel (and this is my professional, medical opinion) that free health care equals mediocre health care professionals with no motivation to excel in their field. I feel that religion belongs in school every bit as much as an evolutionary biology lecture belongs in church. I think that I am more qualified to make decisions concerning myself than any religious, secular, or legal institution is. I think that the tragically misnamed 'common sense', not Astatine, is the rarest element on earth. And I think the human race in general is too stupid to deserve to live.
Which one does that make me?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
DUDE!!!
that rocks I love it, I so agree and so eloquently put 
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
Hi DESD,
The reason why you identify with different things is because you are logically and radically inconsistent. It's very funny. If you were consistent, you would be a serial killer or a deaf mute taking a vow of silence as Heraclitus' student did.
Now I know that you hate logic, since you are an atheist. You pretend to like it for a facade. For one to even know of logic, let alone conduct the process of logic, they have to be a Christian.
Now, explain to me how you can be a little bit of this, and a little bit of that if atheism does not allow you to connect epistemologically to those areas. You are like Q-Pid, (remember that game), jumping around with no connection, no meaning. Constantly looking, and constantly not finding.
Demonstrate the relationship of knowing via these subjects as an atheist logically and philosophically. Or keep doing the name calling out of an emotional reaction of atheistic ignorance.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I identify with different 'things' because I am an individual whose abandonment of dogma and superstition allows me to form my own opinions rather than painfully wrestle the poorly scribbled mythology of semi-literate sheep herders into a philosophy. Furthermore, my outlook shows a decided consistency of individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility that anyone short of a brain addled mongoloid would recognize at a glance.
You have yet do demonstrate how predestination is anything but illogical. Granted, this would be an astronomical task, what with fetus blood dripping from your mouth. But once you can show us how predestination does not encourage amoralistic behavior, perhaps you can then be on somewhat equal footing to discuss logic with, say, a dull witted third grader.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Translation:"Other people outside Christianity give me cooties and I don't want cooties. Mommy, make the different people stop speaking."
Would you like some whine with that cheese?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Wow, the rational Christian of intelligence doesn't even understand common logical fallacies.
No. This is not an equivocation. An equivocation would be conflating two different definitions of the same word. Obama and America are not the same word.
No. You don't even understand what a post hoc is.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc makes the error of assuming causation from correlation; it asserts that just because Q follows P in time, P causes Q. A post hoc would be, "The economy has improved since Obama was elected. Therefore, Obama is fixing the economy." That would be a post hoc. Your example is not a post hoc. It doesn't even have causality in it.
By your understanding of logical fallacies, we would say that this is an equivocation too, since we are "equivocating" Glenn Beck and Fox Network.
*sigh...*
I'm not sure what "ignorantiam elich" is. As far as I know, the term is argumentum ad ignorantiam, and no, those are not examples of arguments from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when you assert that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false. For example, "You don't have any evidence 'disproving' evolution. Therefore, it is obviously true."
Your examples are false dichotomies. Of course, arguments from ignorance are false dichotomies, but not all false dichotomies are arguments from ignorances.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Jean, you are an idiot. Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant, hate-mongering, extremist piece of shit; fat and drug-addled doesn't even factor on the scale of how wrong he actually is, but for what it is worth the evidence that he is overly self-indulgent and patently hypocritical goes towards the argument that he is wrongly critical of others and is therefore perfectly valid. Motes vs Logs and all that very reasonable argumentation you conservative christians so supposedly love... etc...
I think you're bluffing. Where have you seen this argued by any prominently representative liberal thinker? Show me, joker.
On the other hand I can give you a list as long as your arm of this exact form of equivocation coming from conservative politicking, like every single co-sign to the patriot act for example, so it's a bit rich you trying to point the finger at the other guy in their name, goes to show the level of irrationality that America's liberal thinkers have to deal with every day it's no wonder they call you *^$%#^!s names, seriously.
Changing the subject when asked a question like that is doing a favour to the questioner avoiding them embarrassment. Honestly. Obama is obviously, patently, unequivocally not a Marxist, are you an idiot, do you even know what a Marxist is? How would you prefer that for an answer? Liberals who ignore this question are just being polite and civil in the face of your repugnant ignorance. Get a clue.
How about you show the full conversation before you expect anyone to agree with your judgment, eh? From what you've posted I could as easily say it makes no sense and is illogical because you cut the context away.
This is not a pity argument, it's an retort that goes directly to the beliefs upon which your argument supposedly sits. Your &%#$@#* GOD does not condone YOUR attitude here, mate, you therefore have absolutely no grounds for saying that your *%$^#%& GOD is disapproving of me. Get it?
This is the most pathetic crap I have ever had to rebuke. How on earth do you even begin to justify your twisted hypocrisy I don't think i will ever understand. I can barely believe you have the gall to go public with such a disgraceful pile of bullshit. Excuse my outrage, its justified.
Second half later.....
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Meet Jean, Eloise. Could he be a Poe? The integrity of his thinking has odd variables.
Look forward to the second half - you've bowled him a bouncer with the first delivery.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Butter has already made it thoroughly clear why this is a crock. A post hoc fallacy is inferring cause from a prior event, what you're talking about here is guilt by association not causal fallacy. And since no one needs to point to association with Glenn Beck (there are dozens of alternate candidates) to demonstrate that ALL of Fox network is under the auspice of persons dedicated to demonising socialism and therein discrediting Obama policies, it's basically a joke to see you claim this straw man even exists in counter-conservative argumentation.
Say again? What are your examples relating to argument in favour of liberal values? I don't see any.
Butter took you down on this one too... leaves me very little to say, but since I feel like it... neither of these arguments involve any ignorance. Both have an affirmative premise, ignorance is a negative premise, ie x not known or y is not.. etc, find an argument based on something "not" and you may have an example of ignorantiam to share.
On the other hand I'm again finding no example of argument relative to one advocating liberal values. Both your examples are patently argued in favour of conservative beliefs. How do these examples demonstrate anything other than your own ignorant hypocrisy?
You're not demonstrating a slippery slope argument with your example, it's more like a volume tactic, a verbosity obstruction. Verbosity can be considered fallacious in the sense that it muddies context, slippery slope is a completely different fallacy which is characterised by snowballing consequences, snowballing in the sense that they follow from each other, not simply in the sense that there are many of them.
So, for instance, if the respondent in your example had said "denying abortion is denying the right to govern the decisions made over your own body which in turn means free for all organ harvesting, forcible implanting of viruses and cybernetics and eventually out and out human labrat laws ensue" that would be a slippery slope. Your example isn't one of these.
(disclaimer: I don't advocate that slippery slope argument at all, it is merely an example)
Wow, an actual fallacy that might genuinely have been said by a liberal. Yes, the reality is leadership in your country is decided by popular vote and even you can agree it's a decent system in principle so stop whining and live with it. Of course if you know you can demonstrate concrete evidence and reason why other fail-safe senate procedures should be activated for the imperative good of you and your countrymen by all means make your stand, otherwise shut up and stop being such a sore loser, your favourite representatives did a shithouse job of winning peoples votes, not anyone's problem but yours, too bad, so sad... bye.
LMFAO! "evil reprobates", that's about six fallacies rolled into one right there.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Ahh yep, you're right, Butter, the example is a conflation rather than an equivocation. I often miss myself confusing those two.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Ah, right. I skimmed too quickly. This isn't slippery slope either, is it?
On this one, even the description of the fallacy is incorrect.
"A Snowball of Unrelated Questions and Statements to distract from the issue at hand."
That is just a bunch of red herrings, not a slippery slope. An example of a slippery slope would be, "If we allow abortions to occur, it will lead to the fall of civilization and the apocalypse." A slippery slope argument claims that we should not take a small step because it will lead to much more significant steps and impacts. The fallacy occurs when the slippery slope is unjustified and does not acknowledge the possibility of a middle ground.
Okay, so you have 6 out of 10 correct, Jean.
Want to try another one? Explain what a No true Scotsman fallacy is and provide an example.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hi DESD,
I almost forgot about this forum.
You have not abandoned dogma. You have made up your own dogma to follow which is cold and foolish.
You only have opinion. That's it. I have absolute reality since God transcends time. You are bound by time.
Define illogical? It is perfectly valid. You have to first justify your means to know before you can justify your refutation of the known. If you can't do the first part, then everything else is like my mother in law trying to bake a pie. Burnt and not good.
____________
Hi ButterBattle,
These are valid logical fallacies. You don't like because of this then that fallacy?
I have yet to see you argue, you're very quiet. DO you have an argument for atheism?
___________________________
Hi Eloise, My Gnostic Witchcraft Satanic Friend,
Are you a real gnostic? Wow.
A gnostic is a liberal. That's a shocker. Justify your Occult thinking. And yes, I'm assuming Spirit Guide.
I think my example suffices for an example of equivocation that actually took place, don't you? People took Rush's statement about wanting Obama to fail via a logical fallacy sometimes on purpose. Since nobody knows logic, nobody caught it. Obama is a Muslim on his way to hell fast.
Conservatives also use logical fallacies because they are not trained in logic. It is an accident. But liberals are walking logical fallacies with legs. It is their nature to be absurd.
Obama is more of a Marxists then Marx himself. Redistribution of Wealth is what? uh? Capitalism? lol.
Obama using a strawman? hmmm. Since Republicans are not Bipartisan, we cannot make progress in Washington. (Bipartisan is a non-"existent" term in consistent GOP thinking, thus it is a straw man).
God does condone rightful killing. Thou shall not kill is not of ALL killings since the very next chaper condones capital punishment. And war is also a factor. So I would with pleasure shoot Osama Bin Laden right between the eyes and kill him. Also see Psalms 139:21-22.
They like to call me a poe because they are stuck and can't answer my questions. And they have yet to refute my argument. But they are trying.
_____________
Hi Eloise,
Butter didn't do anything. She's having a bad hair day.
My list was short, not a book. I may do a book later and dedicate it to you.
False Dichotomy example for you. hmmm? Either we spend less, or we spend more (by increasing our debt).
Obama is purposely destroying our country. He is riding off of all our weapons so we will be helpless in an attack. Obam is an parasite and will have a hotter place in hell then most.
Liberals by definition do not have values. If you think they do, show me how this is possible starting with yourself. Liberals are very evil and suck on society until it bleed dries and then destroys itself.
This is what happen in Rome, and this is what is happening here now.
I like talking to New Age Gnostics. When you have an argument, I will respond.
____________
Hi ButterBall,
You incorrect. You must have been trained in the school of the modern logic that teaches that logic is actually not logic. This is all documented and I did Major in logic so perhaps I'm right and your wrong
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
It's butterbattle, not butterball, and I am not a 'she.'
I don't care if you have a Phd from Kent Hovind University. 2, 6, 8, and 9, are all wrong. Your logic is epic fail. The average student at my university has a much better understanding of logic after taking Phil 101.
The fact that you have failed to actually address my responses simply demonstrates once again that you are either a very good Poe or a closed-minded moron.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Books are awesome.
No I don't, or I wouldn't have asked you to prove it.
You mean as satire of fundie conservative christian logical fallacies. I can believe that. Not sure I know you'd be able to recognise anyone 'catching it', though.
Were he a Muslim he'd just as nakedly make the same assertion about you and there'd be no logic to believing either of you.
You referring to your vague opening paragraph in the OP? The one about post-modernism?
Liberalism has roots back in the Renaissance and is vastly broader than post-modern relativism so that is not a very convincing demonstration of your claim.
I am a socialist, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with you that it would be in any way to Obama's discredit if he was a Marxist. But actions speak louder than words and most of his actions scream the influence of irrational US conservatism. For example, the stimulus package, tax breaks, especially business sector tax breaks, multiply GDP return at as low as 60c in the dollar, in an unprecedented crisis only dogmatic capitalism explains the denial of economic rationale that punctuates the waste of up to 40% of up to 50% of Obama's stimulus plan. He is not a Marxist. He may aspire to be one, I don't know him personally so I can't say, but the only logic that could possibly have been behind such a move is dogmatic capitalist ideology, hardly the mark of a committed socialist.
I don't think so. I believe ~bipartisan and ~(exists)bipartisan are basically equivalent statements. So he has accurately represented the argument and thus is not employing a straw-man in this case.
So Jesus is not God?
OK, that's a false dichotomy, one could spend the same differently. No issues there. But that's not exactly what I asked for. You've purported to give examples of representative liberal thinkers employing logical fallacies by the truckload. How is this a logical fallacy that liberals routinely, or even often, employ?
Oh, so you don't think it is the least bit paranoid to stockpile up to 1000 times the mass destruction arsenal of the rest of the world, spending the taxpayer out of his daily meal in order to do so? What are you on? America has long needed to tone down the weapons obsession, especially given its track record of friendly fire mishaps, worst in the world I hear. How is more weapons going to save the US from its own self destructive tendencies I wonder? The arms race is over, time to step down from the podium and claim peace, dude.
See what I mean about self destructive. He's your countryman, Jean. If you all hate each other what the fuck are the weapons supposed to be defending.
eh? Even relativists have values, values are essential to the very act of conscious conception. You want an example? ... here.... I just had myself an opinion of your arguments (and it was not particularly flattering) therefore I necessarily have employed a sense of value not three seconds ago. Observe your proof.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Eloise, and for that matter Capioska, I want to take the time to thank you for not being a prick like Jean. Don't get me wrong, I think you both know how I feel about your positions, but at least you know it is a debate and you don't project yourselves on us. Jean wants to "save the world".
Jean could and should take a lesson from you guys. Jean simply acts like the gang member standing behind the gang leader shouting, "YEA YEA WHAT HE SAID". Polly wanna lobotomy?
I hate all deity claims, but for people like Jean to think I am incapable of morality or capable of loving people who believe things I find absurd, is asinine. He needs to grow up.
I know I wont get rid of theism, but I damn sure wish more theists would take your attitude rather than the tyrannical god he tries to sell who will beat the shit out of you for merely disagreeing.
I have family members and friends and co-workers who do believe, and while that thought might drive me nuts, that doesn't make them evil or me evil. It merely means, on ONE ISSUE, we disagree.
Jean refuses to accept that atheists merely don't hold a belief in ANY GOD OR GODS. We are not demon infested. We wont rape his children(if he ever has any). We don't want to stick believers in ovens. I don't even rip the mattress tag off my mattress.
If he would get over his martyr complex "Look at me, I am in the lion's den", and get his head out of his ass, he might learn something.
You and Cappy are a sight for sore eyes by comparison.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Dude, that is not what his addiction to pain killers was about. It was about his fucking hypocricy. He had often railed against addicts (including those addicted to pain meds). He liked to call them "weak."
Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about because he fucking lies. He has been caught in so many lies, just making shit up, that it's hard to believe a single word that comes out of his hypocritical mouth. The fact you seem to have a stiffy for Limbaugh speaks poorly for your ability to discern truth from lies.
It's funny you should use this example. The question is an example of a strawman.
The answer given to the question "Is Obama a Marxist?" is a resounding, "Fuck, no! Whatever gave you the stupid idea he was, Rush Limbaugh?"
Obama's policies have been extremely centrist. (Outside the US, he would actually be considered a conservative.) His social and economic policies have been decidedly not like Marx at all, or even vaguely socialist (which is different from Marxism). If anything, he has been a corporatist. His bailout of GM, for example, left the government with no role other than major shareholder. Now that GM is becoming self-sufficient again, the government is selling its shares, both removing any worries of socialism, and recouping some of the bailout money.
The only thing vaguely socialist is the half-hearted healthcare bill. That isn't so much socialist as economically sensible. The US pays 60% more per-capita for health care than any other developed nation (which almost uniformly have universal health care). In spite of the amount we pay, we receive worse health care, on average. The exceptions are those who are moderately affluent.
So, now that I have presented actual fucking evidence, let's see if you can do the same: provide evidence indicating Obama has passed a single Marxist policy, or even presented on Marxist idea that wasn't already incorporated into American society (unemployment insurance is vaguely Marxist).
No. The real fallacy you have illustrated above is that of the strawman, where absurdly unfounded notions are presented as an authentic concern. This is a favorite tactic of the guy you seem to admire so much, Rush Limbaugh.
Your examples are completely wrong. You are presenting the fallacy of the excluded middle. The "appeal to ignorance" goes more like this:
---- Since scientists cannot explain exactly how life started, God did it.
---- Do you know what happens when you die? Then you had best fellate God, so you go to heaven.
---- There is no evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Therefore, he was born in Kenya.
You do this one all the time. That's all religion is, an appeal to ignorance.
Are you really this much of a fucking ignorant asshat? Seriously?
Shall I go through your posts and start demonstrating all of your logical fallacies? It'd be a good exercise, since I'm a bit out of practice. Your posts are constructed almost entirely of logical fallacies. In fact, remove the fallacies, and I don't think you've said a single thing. I've demonstrated a few here where you were just completely wrong, or where you were unintentionally using fallacies within your examples.
(By the way: I just used a tu quoque fallacy. Just thought you should know. Can you spot it?)
MSNBC is hardly the stalwart of liberalism. The major difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC doesn't rely on lies and misrepresentations to make their biased reports. Your suggestion that we should list the fallacies on MSNBC to illustrate the corrupt nature of liberalism is a fallacy of composition. So there's yet another fallacy.
So, after an entire post that amounts to an ad hominem fallacy, as well as being completely insulting, you accuse liberals of always resorting to the ad hominem fallacy?
Dude, many of us here have studied logic. Since you eschewed the liberal universities, where did you study logic? Considering your obvious lack of understanding of the basic fallacies (as shown by others, and in a few examples above), I'd ask for your money back. You got screwed.
And, one more time (repeat after me): insults are not an ad hominem fallacy. You are a fucking disrespectful condescending ignoramus, but that does not stop me from responding to your posts, pointing out your fallacies and incorrect assumptions, asking for clarification, and so on.
Secondly: Liberals are not pagans! (Some might be, but equating the two would be a fallacy of composition again.) Are you really that fucking ignorant? Seriously? "Pagan" has a very specific religious meaning.
It seems that conservatives like you will always resort to the fallacy of "making shit up."
You are an asshat, and not a very bright one, at that. You just used the martyr fallacy.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Jean Chauvin - liberal in denial?