Liberal Logic is Insane

[NYcarbineer]

I asked for examples . Not "ifs "

There are a lot of conservatives officials who refuse to follow gun laws .

I’m pretty sure it was the democrats (in the white house for sure) who oversaw the IRS illegal discrimination of conservative and Christian non-profits. Criminal?

Is lying to the American people a crime? Telling the whole world for two weeks it was a couple of Georgia punks who made a youtube video on Islam that caused a “spur of the moment” riot, who just so happened to have a cadre of armaments.

Was it a democrat who defied state department rules and had a private server and then erased it after congressional order to turn it over? And will probably get away with it as the liberal (criminal) courts have done so many times before for the dems benefit.

Are these democrat city "safe havens" for illegal alien felons legal, or criminal?

It twas not Alabam punks which made the movie but a felon fraudster that was on parole and was not suppose to have any internet productions.. He tried using a fake name and was sent to prison for breaking his parole limitations...

They put the guy away for over a year because of a stupid video. He was a political pawn.

He pled guilty to probation violation.

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Conservative65]

The only insane logic is that of republicans. "Criminals don't follow gun laws , so we shouldn't have any gun laws ".

Why stop at guns ? Let's get rid of all laws !

Where has any Republican said we shouldn't have any gun laws?

Those to whom the new gun laws will negatively affect aren't the ones that need to be dealt with. They will apply to those who don't go out and do thing for which you want to pass the laws. I had a gun stolen from a locked vehicle while sitting my driveway. The person that stole it trespassed, entered a locked vehicle, and took something that wasn't his/hers. What law do you propose for doing a background check on them? The person that did that, if they used the stolen gun for bad things, wouldn't be stopped by ANY law you gun haters propose. People like me, the ones the laws you propose will negatively effect, don't misuse guns.

 

[Moonglow]

How about u entertain us wh an example?

Here's a couple:
If Bill Clinton was a Republican (or CEO of corporation) the liberals would have been all over him for his sexual conduct with an intern.
Would you care to see your gun control legislation enforced in same manner as illegal immigration?

I asked for examples . Not "ifs "

There are a lot of conservatives officials who refuse to follow gun laws .

I’m pretty sure it was the democrats (in the white house for sure) who oversaw the IRS illegal discrimination of conservative and Christian non-profits. Criminal?

Is lying to the American people a crime? Telling the whole world for two weeks it was a couple of Georgia punks who made a youtube video on Islam that caused a “spur of the moment” riot, who just so happened to have a cadre of armaments.

Was it a democrat who defied state department rules and had a private server and then erased it after congressional order to turn it over? And will probably get away with it as the liberal (criminal) courts have done so many times before for the dems benefit.

Are these democrat city "safe havens" for illegal alien felons legal, or criminal?

It twas not Alabam punks which made the movie but a felon fraudster that was on parole and was not suppose to have any internet productions.. He tried using a fake name and was sent to prison for breaking his parole limitations...

They put the guy away for over a year because of a stupid video. He was a political pawn.

He was on parole for internet fraud..You break probation you go back to jail, no matter who you is.....but please defend a criminal..If it suits your purpose...

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't agree . Gun control states do better wh gun crime than gun nut states .

I'll give u a link . But first u give me 3 states u think are gun friendly and 3 u think are not .

Class, this is called a multiple fallacy. It's an especially dangerous type of fallacy. It occurs when a response constitutes two or more fallacies at the same time. The danger lies in the fact that pointing out the error in reasoning will always allow a superficially satisfying objection from the person who declared the multiple fallacy.

Let's take the above example. Tiny Tim's response constitutes at least three fallacies, all at that same time. He is shifting the burden of proof away from himself, he is creating a red herring to distract from his own lack of evidence, and he is moving the goal post. Any one of these reasons gives adequate cause to object for failures of logic. However, it is nearly impossible for the logically minded opponent to do so effectively, because raising one point of logic will result in a response that redoubles one of the other fallacies. The more you object to one fallacy, the deeper you will be dragged into one of the other fallacies. Even if you manage to adequately address one of the points of fallacy, doing so will have taken you so deep into the other fallacy lines that by the time you are able to begin addressing it you will be the one who appears to be changing topics and layering on new objections. That is to say, a false illusion will be created that you are moving goal posts and laying distractions.

If we were to point out to Tiny Tim that he is shifting his burden of proof, he would likely respond by saying that he will provide evidence (thus, superficially satisfying your objection, though not alleviating his fallacy in actuality), and then repeat his request for you to start providing evidence that he wants you to produce (thus, redoubling the red herring effect). If you continue to decline, pointing out that his repeated demand constitutes a red herring, he will claim that you are now moving the goal post and refusing to meet your burden of proof (thus, redoubling his burden of proof fallacy, because the burden lays upon him and not you), etc. In every instance of possible logical retort you can offer, Tiny Tim will have at his disposal some avenue by which he can retreat deeper into his own fallacies, never having to emerge. And by the time you have exhausted your efforts, it will appear that you have led the discussion on distracting tangents as a red herring.

The ultimate danger of this fallacy is born from the fact that those who utter multiple fallacies are marked with particularly deficient logical faculties. They are so devoid of logic that they simply cannot be moved by any appeal to it whatsoever. Thus, their retreat deeper into their fangled web of multiple fallacies becomes a naturally flowing path through a thicket of nonsensical discovered imagination, and as a result becomes unnavigable by a logically minded opponent who attempts to calculate maneuvers and chart courses to particular end points. In short, by luring you in, Tiny Tim will attempt to drag you down to his level, and then beat you with experience.

Therefore, there is, in fact, no need to engage further when confronted with a multiple fallacy. No logic will be relevant.

 

[candycorn]

I asked for examples . Not "ifs "

There are a lot of conservatives officials who refuse to follow gun laws .

I don't care to play Jeopardy with you, reform the response in any form you'd like it.

You made the statement then offered an opinion about what treatment Bill Clinton would have received as proof

 

[candycorn]

I don't agree . Gun control states do better wh gun crime than gun nut states .

I'll give u a link . But first u give me 3 states u think are gun friendly and 3 u think are not .

Class, this is called a multiple fallacy. It's an especially dangerous type of fallacy. It occurs when a response constitutes two or more fallacies at the same time. The danger lies in the fact that pointing out the error in reasoning will always allow a superficially satisfying objection from the person who declared the multiple fallacy.

Let's take the above example. Tiny Tim's response constitutes at least three fallacies, all at that same time. He is shifting the burden of proof away from himself, he is creating a red herring to distract from his own lack of evidence, and he is moving the goal post. Any one of these reasons gives adequate cause to object for failures of logic. However, it is nearly impossible for the logically minded opponent to do so effectively, because raising one point of logic will result in a response that redoubles one of the other fallacies. The more you object to one fallacy, the deeper you will be dragged into one of the other fallacies. Even if you manage to adequately address one of the points of fallacy, doing so will have taken you so deep into the other fallacy lines that by the time you are able to begin addressing it you will be the one who appears to be changing topics and layering on new objections. That is to say, a false illusion will be created that you are moving goal posts and laying distractions.

If we were to point out to Tiny Tim that he is shifting his burden of proof, he would likely respond by saying that he will provide evidence (thus, superficially satisfying your objection, though not alleviating his fallacy in actuality), and then repeat his request for you to start providing evidence that he wants you to produce (thus, redoubling the red herring effect). If you continue to decline, pointing out that his repeated demand constitutes a red herring, he will claim that you are now moving the goal post and refusing to meet your burden of proof (thus, redoubling his burden of proof fallacy, because the burden lays upon him and not you), etc. In every instance of possible logical retort you can offer, Tiny Tim will have at his disposal some avenue by which he can retreat deeper into his own fallacies, never having to emerge. And by the time you have exhausted your efforts, it will appear that you have led the discussion on distracting tangents as a red herring.

The ultimate danger of this fallacy is born from the fact that those who utter multiple fallacies are marked with particularly deficient logical faculties. They are so devoid of logic that they simply cannot be moved by any appeal to it whatsoever. Thus, their retreat deeper into their fangled web of multiple fallacies becomes a naturally flowing path through a thicket of nonsensical discovered imagination, and as a result becomes unnavigable by a logically minded opponent who attempts to calculate maneuvers and chart courses to particular end points. In short, by luring you in, Tiny Tim will attempt to drag you down to his level, and then beat you with experience.

Therefore, there is, in fact, no need to engage further when confronted with a multiple fallacy. No logic will be relevant.

No, what he is guarding against is you doing what you often do and try to disqualify part of the argument with your opinion. If he paints you into the corner of pre selection of criteria, you can't do that.

He (as we all do) know your playbook. Time to revamp your act.

 

[candycorn]

I asked for examples . Not "ifs "

There are a lot of conservatives officials who refuse to follow gun laws .

I’m pretty sure it was the democrats (in the white house for sure) who oversaw the IRS illegal discrimination of conservative and Christian non-profits. Criminal?

Is lying to the American people a crime? Telling the whole world for two weeks it was a couple of Georgia punks who made a youtube video on Islam that caused a “spur of the moment” riot, who just so happened to have a cadre of armaments.

Was it a democrat who defied state department rules and had a private server and then erased it after congressional order to turn it over? And will probably get away with it as the liberal (criminal) courts have done so many times before for the dems benefit.

Are these democrat city "safe havens" for illegal alien felons legal, or criminal?

It twas not Alabam punks which made the movie but a felon fraudster that was on parole and was not suppose to have any internet productions.. He tried using a fake name and was sent to prison for breaking his parole limitations...

They put the guy away for over a year because of a stupid video. He was a political pawn.

He pled guilty to probation violation.

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

You do know what it means to be on Parole in the first place, correct?

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't agree . Gun control states do better wh gun crime than gun nut states .

I'll give u a link . But first u give me 3 states u think are gun friendly and 3 u think are not .

Class, this is called a multiple fallacy. It's an especially dangerous type of fallacy. It occurs when a response constitutes two or more fallacies at the same time. The danger lies in the fact that pointing out the error in reasoning will always allow a superficially satisfying objection from the person who declared the multiple fallacy.

Let's take the above example. Tiny Tim's response constitutes at least three fallacies, all at that same time. He is shifting the burden of proof away from himself, he is creating a red herring to distract from his own lack of evidence, and he is moving the goal post. Any one of these reasons gives adequate cause to object for failures of logic. However, it is nearly impossible for the logically minded opponent to do so effectively, because raising one point of logic will result in a response that redoubles one of the other fallacies. The more you object to one fallacy, the deeper you will be dragged into one of the other fallacies. Even if you manage to adequately address one of the points of fallacy, doing so will have taken you so deep into the other fallacy lines that by the time you are able to begin addressing it you will be the one who appears to be changing topics and layering on new objections. That is to say, a false illusion will be created that you are moving goal posts and laying distractions.

If we were to point out to Tiny Tim that he is shifting his burden of proof, he would likely respond by saying that he will provide evidence (thus, superficially satisfying your objection, though not alleviating his fallacy in actuality), and then repeat his request for you to start providing evidence that he wants you to produce (thus, redoubling the red herring effect). If you continue to decline, pointing out that his repeated demand constitutes a red herring, he will claim that you are now moving the goal post and refusing to meet your burden of proof (thus, redoubling his burden of proof fallacy, because the burden lays upon him and not you), etc. In every instance of possible logical retort you can offer, Tiny Tim will have at his disposal some avenue by which he can retreat deeper into his own fallacies, never having to emerge. And by the time you have exhausted your efforts, it will appear that you have led the discussion on distracting tangents as a red herring.

The ultimate danger of this fallacy is born from the fact that those who utter multiple fallacies are marked with particularly deficient logical faculties. They are so devoid of logic that they simply cannot be moved by any appeal to it whatsoever. Thus, their retreat deeper into their fangled web of multiple fallacies becomes a naturally flowing path through a thicket of nonsensical discovered imagination, and as a result becomes unnavigable by a logically minded opponent who attempts to calculate maneuvers and chart courses to particular end points. In short, by luring you in, Tiny Tim will attempt to drag you down to his level, and then beat you with experience.

Therefore, there is, in fact, no need to engage further when confronted with a multiple fallacy. No logic will be relevant.

No, what he is guarding against is you doing what you often do and try to disqualify part of the argument with your opinion. If he paints you into the corner of pre selection of criteria, you can't do that.

He (as we all do) know your playbook. Time to revamp your act.

Logic is my opinion?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m pretty sure it was the democrats (in the white house for sure) who oversaw the IRS illegal discrimination of conservative and Christian non-profits. Criminal?

Is lying to the American people a crime? Telling the whole world for two weeks it was a couple of Georgia punks who made a youtube video on Islam that caused a “spur of the moment” riot, who just so happened to have a cadre of armaments.

Was it a democrat who defied state department rules and had a private server and then erased it after congressional order to turn it over? And will probably get away with it as the liberal (criminal) courts have done so many times before for the dems benefit.

Are these democrat city "safe havens" for illegal alien felons legal, or criminal?

It twas not Alabam punks which made the movie but a felon fraudster that was on parole and was not suppose to have any internet productions.. He tried using a fake name and was sent to prison for breaking his parole limitations...

They put the guy away for over a year because of a stupid video. He was a political pawn.

He pled guilty to probation violation.

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

You do know what it means to be on Parole in the first place, correct?

Yes, and I also know what it means to be imprisoned. Between the two, I would choose to keep prisoners in prison and guys making videos out of them to make room for those that harm our society.

 

[candycorn]

It twas not Alabam punks which made the movie but a felon fraudster that was on parole and was not suppose to have any internet productions.. He tried using a fake name and was sent to prison for breaking his parole limitations...

They put the guy away for over a year because of a stupid video. He was a political pawn.

He pled guilty to probation violation.

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

You do know what it means to be on Parole in the first place, correct?

Yes, and I also know what it means to be imprisoned. Between the two, I would choose to keep prisoners in prison and guys making videos out of them to make room for those that harm our society.

He's in jail for parole violation apparently. The video is not the reason.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What gets me about liberals is that they want laws regulating everything but then feel free to disregard them as they see fit.

How about u entertain us wh an example?

Hillary Clinton's now famous e-mail server.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I object to the characterization of the logic described in the OP as "liberal".

It isn't.

It is far left.

As I keep pointing out, liberal is not far left.

Liberal thinks.

Conservative thinks.

Far left and far right does not appear to think at all.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

With regards to sex, I think there should be a signed consent form that has to be notorized in advance......

That should help things .

"Yes Mr. Jones, here is your daughters signed agreement to give Timmy a blow job."

 

[jknowgood]

What gets me about liberals is that they want laws regulating everything but then feel free to disregard them as they see fit.

How about u entertain us wh an example?

Here's a couple:
If Bill Clinton was a Republican (or CEO of corporation) the liberals would have been all over him for his sexual conduct with an intern.
Would you care to see your gun control legislation enforced in same manner as illegal immigration?

I asked for examples . Not "ifs "

There are a lot of conservatives officials who refuse to follow gun laws .

I’m pretty sure it was the democrats (in the white house for sure) who oversaw the IRS illegal discrimination of conservative and Christian non-profits. Criminal?

Is lying to the American people a crime? Telling the whole world for two weeks it was a couple of Georgia punks who made a youtube video on Islam that caused a “spur of the moment” riot, who just so happened to have a cadre of armaments.

Was it a democrat who defied state department rules and had a private server and then erased it after congressional order to turn it over? And will probably get away with it as the liberal (criminal) courts have done so many times before for the dems benefit.

Are these democrat city "safe havens" for illegal alien felons legal, or criminal?

There were demonstrations all over the Mid East at the time because of the video . That's a fact . Even in Lybia .

Okay Obama first called it a spontaneous protest because of the video, then a few weeks later changed his mind. Sorry but you are an idiot for believing the liar in chief.

 

[jknowgood]

With regards to sex, I think there should be a signed consent form that has to be notorized in advance......

That should help things .

"Yes Mr. Jones, here is your daughters signed agreement to give Timmy a blow job."

With all the consent that has to be done before sex. We should mandate that protection has to be used or it is rape. Then abortion could be outlawed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They put the guy away for over a year because of a stupid video. He was a political pawn.

He pled guilty to probation violation.

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

You do know what it means to be on Parole in the first place, correct?

Yes, and I also know what it means to be imprisoned. Between the two, I would choose to keep prisoners in prison and guys making videos out of them to make room for those that harm our society.

He's in jail for parole violation apparently. The video is not the reason.

It isn't?

Following the violent reactions to the video, Nakoula and his family went into hiding, and the Cerritos home was listed for sale.[18] His attorney has said he has received threats to his safety.[39] On 15 September 2012, federal authorities took Nakoula in for an interview about possible probation violations related to the film's distribution on the internet.[42][43][44][45]

On 27 September 2012, U.S. federal authorities arrested Nakoula in Los Angeles charging eight counts of probation violation.[39][46]Prosecutors alleged that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[5] None of the charges relate to his use of the internet.[39]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

He pled guilty to probation violation.

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

You do know what it means to be on Parole in the first place, correct?

Yes, and I also know what it means to be imprisoned. Between the two, I would choose to keep prisoners in prison and guys making videos out of them to make room for those that harm our society.

He's in jail for parole violation apparently. The video is not the reason.

It isn't?

Following the violent reactions to the video, Nakoula and his family went into hiding, and the Cerritos home was listed for sale.[18] His attorney has said he has received threats to his safety.[39] On 15 September 2012, federal authorities took Nakoula in for an interview about possible probation violations related to the film's distribution on the internet.[42][43][44][45]

On 27 September 2012, U.S. federal authorities arrested Nakoula in Los Angeles charging eight counts of probation violation.[39][46]Prosecutors alleged that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[5] None of the charges relate to his use of the internet.[39]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was convicted of bank fraud. A condition of his probation was that he not use any false identities.

 

[Redfish]

Liberal logic is an oxymoron

 

[candycorn]

Right. And while your President is unlocking prison doors and allowing real criminals to walk our streets by the thousands, you justify locking a guy up that made a video because it's a parole violation.

What subject is this again? Oh, that's right, Liberal logic.

You do know what it means to be on Parole in the first place, correct?

Yes, and I also know what it means to be imprisoned. Between the two, I would choose to keep prisoners in prison and guys making videos out of them to make room for those that harm our society.

He's in jail for parole violation apparently. The video is not the reason.

It isn't?

Following the violent reactions to the video, Nakoula and his family went into hiding, and the Cerritos home was listed for sale.[18] His attorney has said he has received threats to his safety.[39] On 15 September 2012, federal authorities took Nakoula in for an interview about possible probation violations related to the film's distribution on the internet.[42][43][44][45]

On 27 September 2012, U.S. federal authorities arrested Nakoula in Los Angeles charging eight counts of probation violation.[39][46]Prosecutors alleged that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[5] None of the charges relate to his use of the internet.[39]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was convicted of bank fraud. A condition of his probation was that he not use any false identities.

Thanks

 

[candycorn]

With regards to sex, I think there should be a signed consent form that has to be notorized in advance......

That should help things .

"Yes Mr. Jones, here is your daughters signed agreement to give Timmy a blow job."

I can see why you feel that way. The last time you had a piece was when the woman died and left it to you in her will.