The great liberal prank

After talking with several liberals I have come to the conclusion that most of them are playing an elaborate hoax.

For example, most liberals also claim to be atheists and philosophical naturalists. However they seem eager most of the time to employ reason and logic in an effort to prove their position is the most cogent. Why is that? It is only if we posit the existence of a soul, a mind that is not a slave to physical forces, that this behavior makes sense.

Secularists are also inconsistent when they deride the free market. From their arguments and attempts at persuasion, they at least act like we operate in a market place of ideas and that the best ideas (ideas which, cobbled together constitute a complete world-view) ought to prevail. When their views are not widely accepted they appear to operate with the curious notion that public opinion is merely a measure of whether their efforts are meeting with success or not. Not whether their ideas are true or not based on market demands.

So I’ve concluded that liberals, particularly those who like to espouse philosophical naturalism and those who feel the need to deride the free market are simply playing an elaborate hoax on the rest of us.

Share

7 responses to “The great liberal prank

  1. Coming to sweeping conclusions about a large group based on several individuals..,,behold the rigorous Wes Widner thought process!

  2. Wes, Dennis Prager reached the same conclusions in an article he published recently on TownHall.com. Stemming from an article exploring why liberal Jews, of whom Prager used to be one, will not accept that human beings are not basically good and the response he received to that article.

    It's worth a read and is based on more than the "several individuals" Lance seems unwilling to accept.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/

    • It's worth a read and is based on more than the "several individuals" Lance seems unwilling to accept.

      Do you find the unwillingness unwarranted?

      • Not entirely. An argument totally and completely reached through such slim support and running against all other evidence would indeed be worthy of such derision.

        Wes made such an apparent leap. However, he was careful to qualify and specify the particular liberals he was applying his conclusions to and at no point specified he was applying his findings broadly or generally.

        • Wes made several of these "leaps"" in his post. Perhaps it was just poor writing on his part but it is consistent with other writings of his on the site.

          • Do you disagree with Wes? If so state your countering argument and lay out your evidence, so that we can discuss the issue at hand.

Leave a Reply