Liberal Logic and Inconsistency Of Views

[Mindmaster]

Ultimately, in regard to the gun issue here is my problem with the liberal position on these sort of things:

1) "We should change all of the gun laws because of what a small percentage of crazy people do."

2) "We should ignore radical Islamic refugees because they are a small percentage of the whole."

3) "We should Ignore criminal illegal immigrants who use sanctuary cities and laws to promulgate their crimes because the majority are harmless."

You see what I did there? Democratic policies are logically inconsistent, so why should I trust them on firearms or anything else? The first position is a reversal of the logic of the other two positions, which leaves one wanting an explanation. It makes no sense to consider the statistical anomalies important in any of these scenarios to me, but I am curious as to how one integrates the "exceptions" to the rule. So, someone explain?!?!

(Note, I realize there are inconsistencies in Conservative views as well in many cases, but I understand those already. )

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was about to point out that conservatives have the same sort of problems. I agree, one should not ignore the problems that one does not want to see.

 

[Altfish]

Only a few mothers want abortions, why does many in the GOP want them banned?

 

[Mindmaster]

Only a few mothers want abortions, why does many in the GOP want them banned?

That's already explained in the note to the topic, so that's another thread. Liberal logical inconsistencies cannot be explained by pointing out someone else's.

 

[idav]

Ultimately, in regard to the gun issue here is my problem with the liberal position on these sort of things:

1) "We should change all of the gun laws because of what a small percentage of crazy people do."

2) "We should ignore radical Islamic refugees because they are a small percentage of the whole."

3) "We should Ignore criminal illegal immigrants who use sanctuary cities and laws to promulgate their crimes because the majority are harmless."

You see what I did there? Democratic policies are logically inconsistent, so why should I trust them on firearms or anything else? The first position is a reversal of the logic of the other two positions, which leaves one wanting an explanation. It makes no sense to consider the statistical anomalies important in any of these scenarios to me, but I am curious as to how one integrates the "exceptions" to the rule. So, someone explain?!?!

(Note, I realize there are inconsistencies in Conservative views as well in many cases, but I understand those already. )

Well sure they are inconsistent when you misrepresent their views. I’ve not heard anyone on either side say to ignore radicals or ignore immigration, but thanks for showing the extreme misrepresentations common for getting points across.

 

[Mindmaster]

Well sure they are inconsistent when you misrepresent their views. I’ve not heard anyone on either side say to ignore radicals or ignore immigration, but thanks for showing the extreme misrepresentations common for getting points across.

Misrepresenting their views? This is exactly the crap that they come at Trump with, lol. I added the "ignore" part only, because from my perspective this is what I see.

 

[idav]

Misrepresenting their views? This is exactly the crap that they come at Trump with, lol.

No that’s exactly what Trump did, saying Dems want an open door policy is hogwash. You sure you didn’t work in Trumps campaign?

 

[Mindmaster]

No that’s exactly what Trump did, saying Dems want an open door policy is hogwash. You sure you didn’t work in Trumps campaign?

You sound triggered...

 

[idav]

You sound triggered...

Nah it was more in jest. But remains true you sound just like trump lol.

 

[Mindmaster]

Nah it was more in jest. But remains true you sound just like trump lol.

It doesn't matter what I sound like, it didn't address the question. It's just passive-aggressive ad hominem crap.

 

[idav]

Misrepresenting their views? This is exactly the crap that they come at Trump with, lol. I added the "ignore" part only, because from my perspective this is what I see.

I can give you a few good examples. Did you know that Clinton supported wall type legislation for the Border? Did you know that Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history. Did you know that Obama already had extreme vetting in place. We can take her one issue at a time if you like.

 

[Mindmaster]

I can give you a few good examples. Did you know that Clinton supported wall type legislation for the Border? Did you know that Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history. Did you know that Obama already had extreme vetting in place. We can take her one issue at a time if you like.

I knew all of the above, but rather I was interested in the cognitive dissonance of seemingly unresolvable positions. If the anomalies are important, then act similarly in similar situations. I find confusion in the liberal abortion position in light of the gun situation, abortion kills far more people. Again, these types of things are difficult for someone like me to get their mind around.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't matter what I sound like, it didn't address the question. It's just passive-aggressive ad hominem crap.

Ya know what's ironic?
The left is credited with inventing whataboutism.
And yet, no one uses it more, particularly in this thread.

 

[Mindmaster]

Ya know what's ironic?
The left is credited with inventing whataboutism.
And yet, no one uses it more, particularly in this thread.

I didn't even know that was a term, well hell I just learned something in this thread. Yeah, tuquoque is just an ad hominem, in the end of it. That's why I called it out immediately, lol.

Presently, it just seems to me that liberals do not understand the sum totals of their positions or their apparent conflict. I'd be happy to be wrong on that however, I just don't see how the ideas in the OP line up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't even know that was a term, well hell I just learned something in this thread. Yeah, tuquoque is just an ad hominem, in the end of it. That's why I called it out immediately, lol.

Presently, it just seems to me that liberals do not understand the sum totals of their positions or their apparent conflict. I'd be happy to be wrong on that however, I just don't see how the ideas in the OP line up.

Well, not all liberals are so challenged that way.

 

[idav]

I knew all of the above, but rather I was interested in the cognitive dissonance of seemingly unresolvable positions. If the anomalies are important, then act similarly in similar situations. I find confusion in the liberal abortion position in light of the gun situation, abortion kills far more people. Again, these types of things are difficult for someone like me to get their mind around.

Which means saying liberals ignore immigration is misrepresentation as mentioned.

I have hought of abortion before it is interesting and I doubt there is an easy answer. Liberals are normally against capital punishment for example but people are generally about preventing unwanted pregnancies to begin with. The consistency is in not judging anyone for their so called sins. It certainly doesn’t mean liberals would have an abortion themselves, there is a lot of middle ground the extreme views on either side miss.

 

[idav]

Ya know what's ironic?
The left is credited with inventing whataboutism.
And yet, no one uses it more, particularly in this thread.

I wouldn’t mind if you debtated that person so we can all learn from it. The OP went from immigration to “what about abortion” so there is plenty likely going around.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn’t mind if you debtated that person so we can all learn from it. The OP went from immigration to “what about abortion” so there is plenty likely going around.

I don't see what to debate.
Logical inconsistency is rampant on both sides of the aisle.
So I settled upon meta-commentary.

 

[idav]

I don't see what to debate.
Logical inconsistency is rampant on both sides of the aisle.
So I settled upon meta-commentary.

I don’t teally think there are inconsistencies as much as people using extremes to prove their points, extremes that likely don’t exist. Similar to using Hitler to drive a point home.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don’t teally think there are inconsistencies as much as people using extremes to prove their points, extremes that likely don’t exist. Similar to using Hitler to drive a point home.

You said "teally".
<snicker>