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: