Posted: 4/9/2015 10:24:34 AM EDT
|
As we know, liberals are emotional thinkers, defying all rationality in their arguments. Lets find out the fallacies in their thinking. Here's one - liberals are going apeshit right now over the recent police shooting. I see them saying how in the future citizens will be so oppressed by the police and will be forced to wear body armor and cameras to deal with the corruption.
Yet they also HATE the idea of armed citizens, and they also want bigger government. So despite that, they want unarmed citizens and a larger armed police force - yet they say we are already almost living in Half Life 2 with the oppressive police as it is. Makes no sense 
Anyone have any others |
|
Quoted:
As we know, liberals are emotional thinkers, defying all rationality in their arguments. Lets find out the fallacies in their thinking. Here's one - liberals are going apeshit right now over the recent police shooting. I see them saying how in the future citizens will be so oppressed by the police and will be forced to wear body armor and cameras to deal with the corruption. Yet they also HATE the idea of armed citizens, and they also want bigger government. So despite that, they want unarmed citizens and a larger armed police force - yet they say we are already almost living in Half Life 2 with the oppressive police as it is. Makes no sense
Anyone have any others 
Picture never gets old 
|
|
Liberals are in favor of assisted suicide and the 'right to die with dignity'. Why, I've even heard their support for extending assisted suicide to teenagers. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Yet, for some reason, they bemoan these incidents of teenage suicide due to being victims of bullying by their peers. Moreover, they're firmly opposed to duels to the death between willing participants. This part is important, as it doesn't rationally follow along with 'assisted suicide'. How can they logically be opposed to duelling? Rationally, liberals ought to be in favor of duels to the death between teenagers -- a widespread phenomenon already afflicting low income minorities teens in traditionally liberal urban metro (read: politically 'blue') areas. No question about that. Yet, liberals conversely bemoan teenage death by 'gun violence'. I'm sorry, it just doesn't follow rationally with their belief towards assisted suicide in relation to teenagers. What's the missing component that liberals can hide behind in this logic tangle they've created here, that the duelling teenage participants have to be terminally sick? What the hell does that have to do with anything, and why is the medical status of the willing teenage participants any of their liberal-assed business? I thought that health records were all personal and private, even for teenagers. So, whenever I hear liberals bemoan 'gun violence' in the inner city, I challenge them with "Wouldst thou rather they used swords?". Sure, that I can get behind. Liberals in those big cities have a right to regulate noise ordinances if teenage gunfire duels is disturbing the peace and preventing nearby liberals from getting a good night's sleep. Yeah, they can do that. So there we have it -- finally a solution to inner city gun violence!: Cite the winner of the duel with a civic noise violation when shots ring out. Make the fine heavy so the message will stick. Those big cities already have urban gunshot detector dealies all over the place so finding the noise ordinance violator ought to be a snap. |
|
Quoted:
Those big cities already have urban gunshot detector dealies all over the place so finding the noise ordinance violator ought to be a snap. I approve your message to bring back mutually voluntary combat, but those shot spotters don't work nearly as well as everyone would love for you to believe. I do like the idea of Pookie and Jayvonn going all Romeo and Tybalt up in the 'hood. |
Ironically, your OP isn't logical. 
Statement 1: Liberals fear police oppression Statement 2: Liberals don't like private gun ownership Conclusion: Since they fear police oppression, they should support private gun ownership. You haven't proven why they should support gun ownership if they fear police oppression. The assumption you appear to be making is that they should support armed resistance to police oppression, which would entail support of gun ownership. However, there is no reason why this assumption should be assumed. |
|
Quoted:
I approve your message to bring back mutually voluntary combat, but those shot spotters don't work nearly as well as everyone would love for you to believe. Quoted:
Quoted:
Those big cities already have urban gunshot detector dealies all over the place so finding the noise ordinance violator ought to be a snap. I approve your message to bring back mutually voluntary combat, but those shot spotters don't work nearly as well as everyone would love for you to believe. True, the technology 'isn't there yet', but that's not our problem. And there's nothing to 'bring back' in regards to mutual voluntary combat. The willing participants are already fully entrenched in it and rationally, the liberals should be happy. I contend that they simply embrace lawful duelling between willing urban teens, just as they've done with legalizing recreational drugs -- ironically, which is what they're legally duelling over in the first place. Isn't drug legalization working out splendidly? They insist it is. How can any liberal or staunch Libertarian disagree? After all, they're hugely in favor of abortion of babies going on for two generations already, so how can they possibly be opposed to duelling to the death by teenagers who are of the age of consent and remain rational in light of 'right to die' and assisted suicide? There's several layers of hypocrisy here, and I'm sure I can think of at least one more. I'm merely saying that the solution to inner city 'gun violence' is already rationally solved by the social liberals' existing views on 'assisted suicide' (even for teens) and the 'right to die with dignity' notion they're pushing: If anything, it's a mere civic noise ordinance violation and they're already taking steps to alleviate that by placing gunshot detectors in urban areas. The solution isn't perfected yet, but we can recognize they're at least trying. I recommend that they require gangbangers to use suppressors just as they require mufflers on automobiles. Perhaps hand out silencers as they do with 'needle sharing programs'. What's their beef, Stu? |
|
Giving people food solves hunger.
Sure, it solves the problem for 8 hours. Teaching people to feed themselves solves hunger. But, asking asking someone to work for food is insensitive and racist and sexist and bigoted and homophobic and is a clear example of white privilege. |
|
Quoted:
liberals make a lot of silly arguments, but i don't think the OP really understands what a 'logical fallacy' is. "A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic. This means that an argument that uses one certainly doesn't hold if you're using logic and reason as your source of decision making" |
|
Our current Democrat governor is such a pathological liar (a budget surplus before the lections somehow tuned into a billion dollar deficit not even a week after the election, and his promise never to raise taxes turned into the biggest tax increase in the state's history. Stunts like that..
A friend of mine and her husband, they're in their 40's but they have the mentality of little kids. They are also Democrat, but I suppose I'm repeating myself. They just told me they are being forced to move because their landlord can no longer afford to keep the house they rent so he's selling it. The reason why the landlord can't keep the house? These people voted this pathological liar governor back into office and now he's looking to implement a whole new series of tax increases. He already went back on his word to lower sales tax and personal property tax. They simply cannot make the connection between voting for bad government and having bad government doing bad things as a result. |
|
Quoted:
I approve your message to bring back mutually voluntary combat, but those shot spotters don't work nearly as well as everyone would love for you to believe. I do like the idea of Pookie and Jayvonn going all Romeo and Tybalt up in the 'hood. Quoted:
Quoted:
Those big cities already have urban gunshot detector dealies all over the place so finding the noise ordinance violator ought to be a snap. I approve your message to bring back mutually voluntary combat, but those shot spotters don't work nearly as well as everyone would love for you to believe. I do like the idea of Pookie and Jayvonn going all Romeo and Tybalt up in the 'hood. Aren't many of the melees in our urban centers precipitated by an affront to one of the participant's honor? "Good Sir, hast thou disrespected my personage? Have at thee, Knave!" "Yo Homie, you dissin me? Break yoself, fool!" Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has thought of overdubbing worldstar videos. Change it from ebonics to Elizabethan English. 
|
|
My favorite knee jerk reaction was several years ago. I stopped by a convenience store that was right by my house. Since we lived out in the boonies, I was there fairly often for incidentals and was pretty familiar to the staff. One day I stopped in on my way back from shooting and was open carrying and one of the clerks went full retard with "Oh, what's the gun for? You gonna rob the place?" Not in a joking manner, but in a seriously nasty tone. I just paid for my stuff and once I was outside, busted up laughing. What kind of idiot intentionally antagonizes someone carrying a gun if they actually believe the bullshit they spew?
If gun owners were as violently inclined as anti gunners purport, blood would literally run in the streets. |
|
Quoted:
"A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic. This means that an argument that uses one certainly doesn't hold if you're using logic and reason as your source of decision making" Quoted:
Quoted:
liberals make a lot of silly arguments, but i don't think the OP really understands what a 'logical fallacy' is. "A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic. This means that an argument that uses one certainly doesn't hold if you're using logic and reason as your source of decision making" logical fallacies are specific things with specific definitions, not simply a dustbin category of stuff you disagree with. fallacies take place within individual arguments. an argument is also a specific thing with a specific definition. properly speaking, a logical fallacy refers to the form of a deductive argument. they include things like the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, the fallacy of illicit subalternation, and so forth. you have yet to show how any liberal argument is formally fallacious. the informal fallacies, OTOH, refer to the content of an argument. they include things like the different varieties of ad hominem (abuse, circumstantial, tu quoque), false cause (non causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc), rhetorical strategems (the ever-beloved straw man, red herring, amphiboly, etc.), and inference (composition, division), among others. unfortunately, many arguments that seem to invoke the informal fallacies are not actually fallacious--an ad hominem circumstantial, for example, is often a very compelling argument. long story short, you need to sit down and do some reading. you don't need to be able to explain why an EAO-4 syllogism is only conditionally valid or anything, but you at least need to get a grasp the basics before accusing other people of logical deficiencies. |
|
Quoted:
As we know, liberals are emotional thinkers, defying all rationality in their arguments. Lets find out the fallacies in their thinking. Here's one - liberals are going apeshit right now over the recent police shooting. I see them saying how in the future citizens will be so oppressed by the police and will be forced to wear body armor and cameras to deal with the corruption. Yet they also HATE the idea of armed citizens, and they also want bigger government. So despite that, they want unarmed citizens and a larger armed police force - yet they say we are already almost living in Half Life 2 with the oppressive police as it is. Makes no sense
Anyone have any others I have been told for years and even on this board that when a police state comes it will be by the hands of Right-Wingers. LOL, a police state is what the Left-Wing nuts have wanted for a long time. Progressives are gonna project. Like saying the people who fear a tyrannical anti-American state in our own borders just want to kill government employees. Cause and Effect mean nothing to them. |
|
Quoted:
logical fallacies are specific things with specific definitions, not simply a dustbin category of stuff you disagree with. fallacies take place within individual arguments. an argument is also a specific thing with a specific definition. properly speaking, a logical fallacy refers to the form of a deductive argument. they include things like the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, the fallacy of illicit subalternation, and so forth. you have yet to show how any liberal argument is formally fallacious. the informal fallacies, OTOH, refer to the content of an argument. they include things like the different varieties of ad hominem (abuse, circumstantial, tu quoque), false cause (non causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc), rhetorical strategems (the ever-beloved straw man, red herring, amphiboly, etc.), and inference (composition, division), among others. unfortunately, many arguments that seem to invoke the informal fallacies are not actually fallacious--an ad hominem circumstantial, for example, is often a very compelling argument. long story short, you need to sit down and do some reading. you don't need to be able to explain why an EAO-4 syllogism is only conditionally valid or anything, but you at least need to get a grasp the basics before accusing other people of logical deficiencies. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
liberals make a lot of silly arguments, but i don't think the OP really understands what a 'logical fallacy' is. "A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic. This means that an argument that uses one certainly doesn't hold if you're using logic and reason as your source of decision making" logical fallacies are specific things with specific definitions, not simply a dustbin category of stuff you disagree with. fallacies take place within individual arguments. an argument is also a specific thing with a specific definition. properly speaking, a logical fallacy refers to the form of a deductive argument. they include things like the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, the fallacy of illicit subalternation, and so forth. you have yet to show how any liberal argument is formally fallacious. the informal fallacies, OTOH, refer to the content of an argument. they include things like the different varieties of ad hominem (abuse, circumstantial, tu quoque), false cause (non causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc), rhetorical strategems (the ever-beloved straw man, red herring, amphiboly, etc.), and inference (composition, division), among others. unfortunately, many arguments that seem to invoke the informal fallacies are not actually fallacious--an ad hominem circumstantial, for example, is often a very compelling argument. long story short, you need to sit down and do some reading. you don't need to be able to explain why an EAO-4 syllogism is only conditionally valid or anything, but you at least need to get a grasp the basics before accusing other people of logical deficiencies. Good point. Cognitive dissonance would probably be the more apt descriptor. |
|
Quoted:
Liberals are in favor of assisted suicide and the 'right to die with dignity'. You sort of lost me at the starting gate. I just heard an ad about a benefit for a guy with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease for those in Rio Linda) on the radio today. Damn. Eat a bullet that day, or see how it plays out? #NotALiberal |
|
Lib - "Guns have no purpose in our society! They kill so many people per year and can't be used for anything else! We need to background checks, waiting periods, and purchase limits for guns!"
Me - "Alcohol doesn't serve any purpose either, and it kills far more than guns. Heck, it is even regulated by the same government agency. I guess we need background checks, waiting periods and purchase limits for alcohol too." Lib - "THAT'S A FALSE ANALOGY!" From this, I've deduced that a false analogy is: any analogy that you make when arguing with a liberal. Send them this link and their heads explode: http://responsiblecitizensdemand.blogspot.com/ |
|
Quoted:
liberals make a lot of silly arguments, but i don't think the OP really understands what a 'logical fallacy' is. Forget it. He's rollin'. There was a time when I thought liberals were emotional and conservatives rational, but six and a half years reading Guys' Drama has pretty much disabused me of the latter notion. |
|
Quoted:
Forget it. He's rollin'. There was a time when I thought liberals were emotional and conservatives rational, but six and a half years reading Guys' Drama has pretty much disabused me of the latter notion. Quoted:
Quoted:
liberals make a lot of silly arguments, but i don't think the OP really understands what a 'logical fallacy' is. Forget it. He's rollin'. There was a time when I thought liberals were emotional and conservatives rational, but six and a half years reading Guys' Drama has pretty much disabused me of the latter notion. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
liberals make a lot of silly arguments, but i don't think the OP really understands what a 'logical fallacy' is. Forget it. He's rollin'. There was a time when I thought liberals were emotional and conservatives rational, but six and a half years reading Guys' Drama has pretty much disabused me of the latter notion. http://troll.me/images/xzibit-yo-dawg/yo-dawg-i-heard-you-think-boys-suck-at-least-we-dont-have-cooties-lololol-umadbro.jpg Like I said ... |
|
Quoted:
The claim 'You're making a strawman argument' is often used by logically-trapped liberals who are pretending to be coy when they've actually been cold busted. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think this is a thread about strawmen of supposed liberal arguments.  The claim 'You're making a strawman argument' is often used by logically-trapped liberals who are pretending to be coy when they've actually been cold busted. ...and who are, in fact, masters of the straw argument themselves... Projection is a common symptom of Clueless Liberal Asshole Syndrome. |
|
Quoted: Modern liberalism/progressivism isn't about reason or logic so there isn't any point to this exercise. This. Huge liberal wanker I work with was robbed at gun point a couple of months back. One of his reactions to this was to rant to me about MY guns and my support of CCW. When I asked him what those two things had to do with the three criminals that robbed him, his "logic" is that criminals get guns because it's so easy to get them from people like me. When I asked him how that works, he stated they steal them from people like me. When I said to him, "so the fact that criminals acquire guns through criminal activities from people who have legally acquired them is the root of the problem?" Naturally he followed up my question with the statement that private gun ownership is the reason we have so much crime. He seemed pleased that I finally see the light. I try really hard not to talk to this guy since it makes my head hurt to listen to anything that comes out of his mouth. |
|
Quoted:
This. Huge liberal wanker I work with was robbed at gun point a couple of months back. One of his reactions to this was to rant to me about MY guns and my support of CCW. When I asked him what those two things had to do with the three criminals that robbed him, his "logic" is that criminals get guns because it's so easy to get them from people like me. When I asked him how that works, he stated they steal them from people like me. When I said to him, "so the fact that criminals acquire guns through criminal activities from people who have legally acquired them is the root of the problem?" Naturally he followed up my question with the statement that private gun ownership is the reason we have so much crime. He seemed pleased that I finally see the light. I try really hard not to talk to this guy since it makes my head hurt to listen to anything that comes out of his mouth. Quoted:
Quoted:
Modern liberalism/progressivism isn't about reason or logic so there isn't any point to this exercise. This. Huge liberal wanker I work with was robbed at gun point a couple of months back. One of his reactions to this was to rant to me about MY guns and my support of CCW. When I asked him what those two things had to do with the three criminals that robbed him, his "logic" is that criminals get guns because it's so easy to get them from people like me. When I asked him how that works, he stated they steal them from people like me. When I said to him, "so the fact that criminals acquire guns through criminal activities from people who have legally acquired them is the root of the problem?" Naturally he followed up my question with the statement that private gun ownership is the reason we have so much crime. He seemed pleased that I finally see the light. I try really hard not to talk to this guy since it makes my head hurt to listen to anything that comes out of his mouth. He's got a point. If we were to ban dangerous drugs such as cocaine, heroin, etc, people would have no ways of getting access to them anymore since they would be illegal.... Oh wait....... wut? |
|
Quoted:
First of all, define "liberal." I don't think it means what you think it means. Benjamin Disraeli was a Liberal. Any objections to his policies? Oh I see, you're bringing up the traditional, old definition of liberal in an attempt to sound smart. We are living in modern times so I'm referring to the modern definition. |
|
I love to to get liberals to agree that all politicians are Lying, greedy, con artists who are really only in it for themselves and then point out that liberals are putting their full faith and trust into such degenerate people expecting them to solve their problems. |