Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Liberal Logic

Came across this video on a site. The comments section was chock full of praise for the "compelling", "irrefutable" logic.

I guess this is what passes for clear and compelling thinking -- if you're a liberal. However, I thought it was a bunch of bull.

If you buy this guy's line of reasoning, all you have to do to win your argument is come up with a more dire consequence resulting from the failure to follow your action plan. So, no matter what you say, all I have to do is say "the world could come to an end unless you enact my plan".

In fact, this type of thinking is classic liberal argumentation. Look at all the campaigns which are based on emotional appeals to "save the children". Who could be against helping children (besides heartless conservatives that is). You don't need to support your plan with facts or reason; No, you're doing it for the children and that's all that matters!

Anyone who's actually interested in a non=hysterical look at global warming should watch The Great Global Warming Swindle.

1 comment:

Matthew said...

This guy narrows the focus to significant action or inaction because supposedly we cannot be completely certain of the "reality" of whether or not man-made global warming exists. A major problem I see for him is that if we can't figure out whether man causes global warming, how are we supposed to know what actions will be significant in reducing our effect on the temperature of the globe? It seems in order to have a signifcant choice between "collumns" A and B, you have to determine what human actions (if any) influence the globe's temperature. And as the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle" demonstrates so well, that we are clearly in the top row, where MMGW does not exist in reality. So collumn A and B are reduced to Global Depression vs. Life as Usual and I think I'll opt for B.


Blog Archive