Justice Roberts: why you don’t need a spam filter, and other deep thoughts

Justice Roberts reflects on racism and the voting rights act

Justice Roberts reflects on racism and the voting rights act

Chief Justice Roberts displayed incredible logic in his decision striking down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s so brilliant, we just wanted to pointed out some of the other ways that the same logic could be applied.

First, the court’s decision, written by Roberts, can be seen in full; however, the gist of the argument is this:

Section 4 of the act identified just a few states and counties required to pre-clear their changes to voting procedures, in order to ensure that they did not disenfranchise minority voters. The areas identified were those where Congress found “evidence of actual voting discrimination,” and the covered jurisdictions shared two characteristics: “the use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the national average.”

Quoting from Page 3 of the court document: “Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act [emphasis added], voter turnout and registration rates in covered jurisdictions now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

Roberts, backed by a majority of the court, concludes that because the conditions that lead to the act are no longer true, the act is no longer needed.

Impeccable logic!

There is a rumor that, during afternoon cocktail parties, Roberts was also willing to go on and give advice on other topics. For example…

Email:

“I used to get tons of spam email. So, several years ago, I installed a spam filter. Ever since then, I haven’t received any spam emails! Obviously, because the conditions that lead to me installing the spam filter are no longer true, I don’t need that spam filter any more!”

Fitness:

“Several years ago, I realized I was a fat slob. So, I started eating right and exercising. I lost some weight, and now I feel much healthier. Obviously, because the conditions that lead to me exercising and eating right are no longer true, I don’t need to eat right or exercise any more!”

Sex and Romance:

“My wife used to complain that I was selfish and terrible in bed. So, grudgingly, I tried paying attention to her, instead of just on satisfying myself. Now, my wife is much happier! PROBLEM SOLVED! Obviously, since the problems and complaints that lead to me caring about my wife are no longer the case, well… I obviously don’t need to pay any attention to that nonsense anymore!”

 

Thank you for your great font of wisdom, Justice Roberts. Bravo.

Logic has a liberal bias! (case studies from the Boston Bombing)

Fallacy Examples

Fallacy Examples

If you were forced to go to college, you probably remember that “logic” has all kinds of rules. The recent Boston Bombing event provides a good case study to prove that these so-called “logic rules” have a liberal bias.

By now, we all know that the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing incident were Islamic and were originally from Chechnya. Based on these facts, there are a number of conservatives on websites and on the news who have made very keen observations, and who have come to a variety of very reasonable, very sound conclusions. For example:


“Ha, ha! Stupid liberals were trying to blame ‘right-wing extremist’!  Well, the fact that these people are foreign Islamists just proves that there is NO SUCH THING as right-wing terrorism!”

“This is more proof that all Muslims are murderous and hateful!”

“These people are obviously members of Al Qaeda!”

“Obama got re-elected, and now this? See what happens when you vote for a liberal president!!!”

“Clearly Obama is incompetent, because one of the things that happens when you have an incompetent president is attacks on our own soil.”


All of these are clearly excellent arguments and are perfectly valid.

Unfortunately, the Tyrannical Left is trying to insist that these conclusions are not warranted, saying that they involve “logical fallacies”. Let’s take a look:

Conclusion: Some liberals claimed the bombers were probably American right-wing extremists. They were wrong. Therefore, there is no such thing as American right-wing extremism.

Liberal academics will call this kind of reasoning “cherry picking” or the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. They call this a form of over-generalization that is based on taking one particular case where the claim of “right-wing extremism” was false, and concluding from it that all claims of “right-wing extremism are false.”

Conclusion: Al Qaeda are terrorists. These two people are terrorists. Therefore, these two are obviously associated with Al Qaeda.

Liberal academics will call this kind of reasoning the fallacy of the undistributed middle. This basically means that just because two things share a property, doesn’t mean they are related or the same. This kind of fancy terminology is why most good conservatives fall asleep in college classes.

Conclusion: First, Obama got re-elected. Then, this terrorist attack happens. Therefore, this terrorist attack was caused by people voting for Obama.

Liberal elitist snobs will whip out some of that fancy Latin stuff on you and call this the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Basically this means that just because A happened before B doesn’t mean that A caused B.

Conclusion: If a president is incompetent, then you can expect things like terrorism and crime to increase. Terrorism has increased.  Therefore, this president is incompetent.

No-good left-wing academics will call this kind of reasoning the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Basically this means that if you have a sentence that says “If A then B”, you can’t conclude that just because B is true then also A will be true.

 


 

In the days that follow, there will no doubt be more good conservatives coming to reasonable conclusions like these, and yet there will also no doubt be buzz-kill liberals throwing around fancy University words like “fallacy” to try to rain on their parades.

So keep your eyes peeled for the comments sections on the internet! If you ever see a liberal saying something like, “That’s a logical fallacy!” then just make sure you call them out, by yelling: “LOGIC HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!”

 

Editor’s Note:  For your convenience, below, we will share with you a more complete list of so-called “logical fallacies”.  If you are a true conservative, and want to help the conservative movement, make sure you use as many of these as possible whenever you are arguing with liberals.  It will really piss them off:

 

Complete list of fallacies.