Liberal Fallacies

[Bill Thompson]

1. The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago
2. Obama is "African American"
3. If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars
4. If we are kind or tolerant to our enemies, they will be kind and tolerant to us
5. 9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something
6. Obama told the truth in Cairo about the Golden Age of Islam and that helped the USA somehow
7. MSNBC repots the news more than gives opinions
8. The invasion of Iraq was done to find Weapons of Mass Destruction
9. The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.
10. Less people died because of Bill Clinton's war decisions and actions or inactions than George W. Bush's
11. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was wrong

I will add more when I think of or remember them.

 

[Damien Evans]

 

[Loss Leader]

1. The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago
2. Obama is "African American"
3. If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars
4. If we are kind or tolerant to our enemies, they will be kind and tolerant to us
5. 9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something
6. Obama told the truth in Cairo about the Golden Age of Islam and that helped the USA somehow
7. MSNBC repots the news more than gives opinions
8. The invasion of Iraq was done to find Weapons of Mass Destruction
9. The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.
10. Less people died because of Bill Clinton's war decisions and actions or inactions than George W. Bush's
11. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was wrong

I will add more when I think of or remember them.

Putting aside for the moment that you're using the word "fallacy" incorrectly, do you have any evidence at all that the things on your list are beliefs that all or most liberals have - or that these beliefs have been promulgated by an organization actually representing liberals?

I consider myself exceedingly liberal, but the only statement of yours that I unreservedly agree with is, "9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something." Without question, George Bush was President on September 11, 2001. Without question, that somehow means something. I don't know what it means or how it means it, but everything somehow means something and you didn't specify what it meant or how it meant it.

 

[Wolfman]

Conservative Fallacy Number One

Conservative Fallacy Number One

That if I point out that some Liberals make claims that are demonstrably untrue, I can ignore the far greater number of conservative fallacies that are promulgated by conservative leaders every day.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why is this in Forum Community?

 

[ravdin]

The politics section is thataway. -->

 

[Upchurch]

Why is this in Forum Community?

The politics section is thataway. -->

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Mike!]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Looks like a nice orderly helped him find his way now.

 

[fishbob]

i will add more when i think of or remember them make them up.

ftfy

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Quite a stack of straw you're setting up there, Bill Thompson.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, since this is now in it's proper board:

The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago

Bill is correct. This is a "fallacy", by which I assume he means "untrue". The Iraq War started 8 years, 8 months, and 3 weeks ago. (Thank you for the trivia, Wikipedia) Of course, there were hostilities before that that lead up to the Iraq War, but by that logic, one could argue that World War II started in 1914, or even earlier.

Obama is "African American"

His father was natively African. His mother was an American. He's probably more rightly called "African American" than most. I fail to see the "fallacy" here.

If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars

I don't know who's claiming that, but as we've never had a woman president, it is merely speculation. It is neither true nor false.

If we are kind or tolerant to our enemies, they will be kind and tolerant to us

wut? I don't even know where this comes from. I'm guess this is just pure straw.

9-11 happened on "Bush's Watch" and that somehow means something

A conspiracy in which Bush knew something ahead of time, no. That's just truther nonsense. The consequences of Bush's decisions after 9-11 certainly does "mean something".

Obama told the truth in Cairo about the Golden Age of Islam and that helped the USA somehow

I'll admit that I have no idea what the point of contention is on this one.

MSNBC repots the news more than gives opinions

Lemmie guess, Bill. Things you don't like are "opinions" and things you like is "news"?

The invasion of Iraq was done to find Weapons of Mass Destruction

WMD was certainly a reason, cited both in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. It was also one of the main points the Bush Administration used to sell the idea of imminent threat to the American people.

The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.

Who is suggesting this?

Less people died because of Bill Clinton's war decisions and actions or inactions than George W. Bush's

Ah, weasel words. Lemmie guess, The Afghanistan and Iraq War was the fault of Clinton's decisions and not Bush's because Clinton could have done more earlier to have prevented all of it, right?

Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was wrong

I agree with you that this one is not true. If it had said, "Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the timing of the invasion of Iraq was wrong", then it would be true.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The USA gassed the Kurds and the Irainians.

Who is suggesting this?

I think it's just a straw version of a legitimate observation: that this happened back in 1988 when the U.S. and Saddam Hussein's Iraq where more or less allies.

I've never heard anyone say the U.S. did the attacks in question or even that Saddam Hussein was acting under U.S. orders. (I'm sure there are fringe people somewhere who've made just about any claim possible, but that's why an extreme position is still a strawman--Bill Thompson's version of this certainly doesn't represent a typical "liberal" claim.)

I would say it's most accurate to say that at that time, many people here recognized Hussein was a monster, but he was "our" monster. (Compared to some rulers in the region, he was closer to what we wanted in an ally. At least he wasn't a religiously-motivated zealot like you get in Iran. He was simply a bloodthirsty tyrant.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with you that this one is not true. If it had said, "Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, the timing of the invasion of Iraq was wrong", then it would be true.

My criticism was that he certainly exploited this commonly held false belief. I remember reading about a poll done by Stars n Stripes early on in the invasion/occupation that showed that a shockingly high majority (something like 80%? IIRC) of the troops there thought that the reason they were there was to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

Bush could well have said that he simply wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein at great cost in treasure, lives and international credibility not because he was involved with 9/11 and not because he offered a realistic or credible imminent threat to the U.S.

But he didn't do that.

 

[Cain]

Don't listen to these liberal liars, Bill. Thank goodness you didn't bother with liberal economic fallacies, otherwise the list would run into the hundreds.

 

[Upchurch]

My criticism was that he certainly exploited this commonly held false belief. I remember reading about a poll done by Stars n Stripes early on in the invasion/occupation that showed that a shockingly high majority (something like 80%? IIRC) of the troops there thought that the reason they were there was to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

This is completely anecdotal, but I was taking a ethics class I think as late as 2005 or 2006. It was kind of a joke of a class and got way off topic often. Anyway, there was this one time we got onto the war and one of my classmates, speaking of Saddam, said something along the lines of, "Well, if he didn't want to get invaded us, he shouldn't have attacked us." That was the first time, when discussing politics, that roughly liberal half of the class and the roughly conservative half of the class came to screeching halt and resoundly pounced on the poor student for being flat-out wrong about that.

 

[Polaris]

I think it's just a straw version of a legitimate observation: that this happened back in 1988 when the U.S. and Saddam Hussein's Iraq where more or less allies.

I've never heard anyone say the U.S. did the attacks in question or even that Saddam Hussein was acting under U.S. orders. (I'm sure there are fringe people somewhere who've made just about any claim possible, but that's why an extreme position is still a strawman--Bill Thompson's version of this certainly doesn't represent a typical "liberal" claim.)

I would say it's most accurate to say that at that time, many people here recognized Hussein was a monster, but he was "our" monster. (Compared to some rulers in the region, he was closer to what we wanted in an ally. At least he wasn't a religiously-motivated zealot like you get in Iran. He was simply a bloodthirsty tyrant.)

The closest I've heard to that claim was that we "gave" him the weapons that he used against the Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shi'ite uprising. The claim falls apart, of course, when it's pointed out that nerve gas is relatively easy to make, and the US wasn't making a whole lot of MiGs and Hind helicopters in the 1980s.

Regarding the OP, the only fallacies I can think of offhand that I'd ascribe to the left as opposed to the right are:

Nuclear power is more dangerous than it's worth.

And,

Poverty causes terrorism.

 

[Ladewig]

1. The Iraqi War started about 10 years ago
2. Obama is "African American"

1. 
   
   I'll bite at your bating.
   What is he?
   

   [*]If we have a woman president, there won't be any wars

   
   Do you have any evidence that this assertion is believed by more than one percent of liberals? Doesn't even have to be good evidence - any evidence at all.
   
   Here is a maxim I consider exceedingly useful. If one cannot accurately sum up the position of one's political opponents, one should stay away from political arguments. Of course this applies to everyone entering the debate.

 

[stevea]

This is completely anecdotal, but I was taking a ethics class I think as late as 2005 or 2006. It was kind of a joke of a class and got way off topic often. Anyway, there was this one time we got onto the war and one of my classmates, speaking of Saddam, said something along the lines of, "Well, if he didn't want to get invaded us, he shouldn't have attacked us." That was the first time, when discussing politics, that roughly liberal half of the class and the roughly conservative half of the class came to screeching halt and resoundly pounced on the poor student for being flat-out wrong about that.

Umm - Iraq used surface to air missiles to attack US & UK jets enforcing the no-fly zone created as a result of the 1st gulf war. It's a stretch of terminology, but they did attack us repeatedly in this way, and this was part of the justification.

I'm not trying to justify or rationalize Iraq2. I think it was a waste, particularly after the first 2 weeks when all military goals were achieved.

 

[Upchurch]

Umm - Iraq used surface to air missiles to attack US & UK jets enforcing the no-fly zone created as a result of the 1st gulf war. It's a stretch of terminology, but they did attack us repeatedly in this way, and this was part of the justification.

I should have made this more clear, the student was referring to 9/11.

 

[Biscuit]

To deny that WMD's were not a reason given for the invasion of Iraq is stupid. Remember the talking point about the smoking gun being a "mushroom cloud?" Remember the U.N. resolution? Hell I have friends that still think we actually found WMD in Iraq!

Was it the only reason? no. Was it a reason? Yes.

As for the rest of the list we have a prime example of straw man arguments meant to make the arguer feel superior in his beliefs but there isn't an ounce of truth to it.