Here's a fact that should come as a surprise to exactly nobody: Conservapedia really ticks me off when I'm not laughing at it. Let's look at their article on Liberal Logic, which relies almost solely on generalizations (surprising no one). Read along, the assertions are on the original article, my refutations here.
1. Their reference here basically amounts to "Liberals use circular reasoning because some guy who's against ID uses circular reasoning because we said so."
2. PROVE IT. Give me evidence- and once you've given me evidence, PROVE that it's ALL liberals. They do have a point, though- you'll never see a conservative complaining about something because they feel that it goes against their beliefs and morals! Wait...
3. I've never seen anybody claim this.
4. Conservapedia clearly doesn't understand citing sources. I know this because their little source link thing here doesn't SOURCE ANYTHING other than baseless assertions.
5. ...No. Just no.
6. Conservative (Not all conservatives, mind you, just the nutjobs that inhabit websites like this) logic: One liberal uses circular reasoning, therefore all liberals use circular reasoning. (See #1)
7. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy: Not running for president. John McCain: Running for president. Big difference. The sad part is that these guys probably supported the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which did EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE CRITICIZING, but also HAD NO REAL PROOF TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT (other than 'I don't remember it like they say it happened,' but than again only one of them actually served with Kerry.
8. ...THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE YOU MORON.
9. Finally, a REAL sourced statement. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the hell they're criticizing here. What is wrong about that quote? What? I honestly don't know. This is another example of my refutation of #6, by the way.
10. ...What? Once again, Conservapedia has managed to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
11. Because conservatives never tell other people they should be ashamed for their actions.
12. More baseless accusations. SOURCES. DOES YOU HAVE THEM?
13. Once again, what the hell are you talking about?
14. I have never seen "insisting that an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone," and I've only ever seen "insisting classroom prayer can cause harm" in the sense that people might be offended by it, which is ridiculous in and of itself, I admit... unless we're talking about mandatory prayer and not voluntary prayer, in which case IT CAN INDEED CAUSE HARM by forcing views onto children that they may or may not hold.
15. Your logic does not make sense. 'Doing X decreases the risk, so not doing X increases the risk' is NOT A LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT.
16. Your grammar sucks. Also, your argument doesn't work either.
17. GIVE ME SOME GOD DAMNED SOURCES.
18. I'll respond with a link to some REAL statistics, which Conservapedia has not done. Here's a study which shows that abstinence-only education does not reduce the occurrence of teenage sex.
19. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THAT'S AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT, PROVIDE SOME FREAKING EVIDENCE.
20. I have no idea what's going on in this one, either.
21. I... I've got nothing to say, it's just too damn stupid.
22. I'm going to assume that this is vandalism, because NOBODY can possibly be that dumb... can they? If they can... wow, I didn't think it was possible for me to have less faith in humanity, but that'd do it alright.
I hate Conservapedia.
1. Their reference here basically amounts to "Liberals use circular reasoning because some guy who's against ID uses circular reasoning because we said so."
2. PROVE IT. Give me evidence- and once you've given me evidence, PROVE that it's ALL liberals. They do have a point, though- you'll never see a conservative complaining about something because they feel that it goes against their beliefs and morals! Wait...
3. I've never seen anybody claim this.
4. Conservapedia clearly doesn't understand citing sources. I know this because their little source link thing here doesn't SOURCE ANYTHING other than baseless assertions.
5. ...No. Just no.
6. Conservative (Not all conservatives, mind you, just the nutjobs that inhabit websites like this) logic: One liberal uses circular reasoning, therefore all liberals use circular reasoning. (See #1)
7. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy: Not running for president. John McCain: Running for president. Big difference. The sad part is that these guys probably supported the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which did EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE CRITICIZING, but also HAD NO REAL PROOF TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT (other than 'I don't remember it like they say it happened,' but than again only one of them actually served with Kerry.
8. ...THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE YOU MORON.
9. Finally, a REAL sourced statement. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the hell they're criticizing here. What is wrong about that quote? What? I honestly don't know. This is another example of my refutation of #6, by the way.
10. ...What? Once again, Conservapedia has managed to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
11. Because conservatives never tell other people they should be ashamed for their actions.
12. More baseless accusations. SOURCES. DOES YOU HAVE THEM?
13. Once again, what the hell are you talking about?
14. I have never seen "insisting that an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone," and I've only ever seen "insisting classroom prayer can cause harm" in the sense that people might be offended by it, which is ridiculous in and of itself, I admit... unless we're talking about mandatory prayer and not voluntary prayer, in which case IT CAN INDEED CAUSE HARM by forcing views onto children that they may or may not hold.
15. Your logic does not make sense. 'Doing X decreases the risk, so not doing X increases the risk' is NOT A LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT.
16. Your grammar sucks. Also, your argument doesn't work either.
17. GIVE ME SOME GOD DAMNED SOURCES.
18. I'll respond with a link to some REAL statistics, which Conservapedia has not done. Here's a study which shows that abstinence-only education does not reduce the occurrence of teenage sex.
19. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THAT'S AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT, PROVIDE SOME FREAKING EVIDENCE.
20. I have no idea what's going on in this one, either.
21. I... I've got nothing to say, it's just too damn stupid.
22. I'm going to assume that this is vandalism, because NOBODY can possibly be that dumb... can they? If they can... wow, I didn't think it was possible for me to have less faith in humanity, but that'd do it alright.
I hate Conservapedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment