Deconstructing the Liberal Argument/"Logic"

NotoriouslyConservative.com ^ | 01 30 09 | Notoriously Conservative

[Notoriously Conservative]

I wanted to address liberal arguments; I will address, specifically, two types of liberal arguments; namely moral relativity and passive tyranny.

When liberals feel the need to argue with a conservative view point (and they often do), one common argument is that conservatives shouldn’t push their views onto others, because it infringes on their right to believe the way they believe. They argue this because their view of morality is relative, that is, morals depend on who you are talking to, and in what circumstance. The problem with this argument is, if you don’t believe in this relativistic view of morality then you are ridiculed, labeled as intolerant, ostracized, and perhaps they will even take you to court. Logically, this makes the liberal belief system every bit as dogmatic as they claim the conservative view point to be.

Have you ever noticed that when you are having an argument with a liberal, they are very hostile to your views, and it seems like all of your logical arguments bounce right off of their heads? Well this is easily explained by the aforementioned relative view of morality. This relative view of morality suggests that there is no absolute truth, that all views are equally true and equally fallible. This idea of openness, tolerance and equality is exceptionally prohibitive of anything being absolutely true or good. According to Alan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind), by dogmatically maintaining there is no truth, people who are relativists have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing the truth, if in fact it does exist.

The other problem with this logic is that the idea that there is no truth would have to be inclusive of the supposed truth of moral relativity. In other words, if nothing is absolute truth, than either is the...

[lormand]

Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a lobotomized dung flinging monkey (apologies to monkeys)

[chuck_the_tv_out]

Yes.

“The problem with this argument is, if you don’t believe in this relativistic view of morality then you are ridiculed, labeled as intolerant, ostracized”

I’ve come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t make their arguments for them, presuming what their arguments are and cycling over them.

lib TV seems to actively encourage that behavior. Their memes dominate your thinking, even though you are internally arguing against it.

A great passage in proverbs (26.4) says “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

The lib “arguments” have become madness, pointless in the extreme. A fool’s folly.

[Irene Adler]

Most liberals, by far, regard themselves as 'always right' due to their ever-present 'good intentions'. (Conservatives' intentions are, of course, NEVER good, as we all know; as a matter of fact, our intentions are always evil, plus we are barely human and deserve no respect of any sort. /sarc)

Disastrous outcomes of liberal actions simply do not matter, because self-regarded good intentions are all-important and are a sort of 'outcome' all by themselves for liberals. I do know a small number of liberals who will occasionally admit having been wrong about one thing or another, but I know many who NEVER will admit any sort of error (or any level of self-interest, either; their motivation is alwas angelic), no matter what. They just change the terms of the discussion. They are amazingly good at this, and can do it in an instant.

[Notoriously Conservative]

Great proverb, perhaps I will have to include that.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

If you like that, check out the next proverb:


Prov 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

[paulycy]

Liberals and especially the left, use the rhetorical technique “sophism.” Simply put, sophistic arguments sound true but are, in fact, lies. It is very useful to listen to the left (Air America, Olberman, etc.) to hear the sheer cleverness in their fabrications.

Here’s one definition:

“a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn”

With a little practice you can begin to recognize the technique and start deconstructing the lie and hammering it to death.

[mjp]

Both Secular Humanist liberals and Marxist/Leninist liberals scoff at the existence of an all-encompassing moral order. They deny the concept of an absolute, holy God and conclude that moral absolutes cannot exist. But according to Biblical Christianity, ethical relativism leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13). The Christian also believes that societies and individuals that choose ethical relativism incur
God’s wrath (Isaiah 5:20)