Wow! Talk about your unfair generalizations!

[mjr]

Gee Whiz. Found this posted (via Disqus) in an article I was reading. Talk about unfair generalizations. Damn! This guy is strongly implying (if not outright saying) that all liberals are like this. He must suck at painting, he's using such a broad brush. Are there liberals that think like this? Probably, yeah. But that doesn't mean a majority (or all) do...

This is something I preach against as a conservative (with people lumping "all conservatives" into groups). So I feel it necessary to say that this guy is being very, very unfair in his generalizations.

https://townhall.com/columnists/john...beral-n1687730

See what I mean? Geez. Where did this guy come up with this stuff?

[s_stabeler]

it's more an extreme case of a) "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" b)almost certainly projecting their own thoughts onto liberals c) Strawman.(specifically because the article is attacking their made-up liberalism, not what liberals actually believe.)

To answer the article's points, however:
1) you can self-identify as whatever you want.It doesn't mean you actually are.(no, this isn't No True Scotsman. NTS is specifically where you declare, say,(and I know this isn't true- I'm making a point) "All conservatives support young people being forced to work for 1 cent per hour", someone retorts "this is a list of conservatives who disagree with you" then you say "they aren't true conservatives because thye don't agree"- the fallacy is you are defining the group by the ideology you claim them to have, not by what ideology they actually have.)
2) Firstly, while the Democrats may well have done those things- i can't look it up right now- those were done before the main parties more-or-less flipped- beforehand, the Republicans were arguably the more liberal arty, and the democrats more conservative.. Second, they generally mean the country overall is racist or mean.
3) you don't have to like gay marriage to think it should be legal. As for guns, almost nobody thinks they should be banned, but there IS a legitimate debate on where the line should be. As for energy-saving lightbulbs, the country needs to cut it's energy consumption. THAT is why the ban on incandescents, especially since incandescent bulbs are functionally heaters that happen to provide light as well (seriously. 97.8% of the energy is emitted as heat on average. That's not a lightbulb, it's a heater.)
4) we don't see traditions as inviolable, if that's what you mean. By the way, when are you returning to your cave? it was traditional for 90-odd% of human history, after all. Surely they knew something we don't.(yes, this is me mocking the view that tradition is inviolable. Times do change.
5) just because we don't agree about what you think God says doesn't mean we don't believe in Him. ( yes, there are atheist liberals. That doesn't make all liberals atheists)
6)What. WTF did that come from?
7) the ban on DDT actually exempts situations where it's been deemed nessecary for malaria control.So all I can say is that this argument actually manages to fail harder than the last one- I did not expect that.
8) Liberals isn't spelled R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S.
9)Is this a joke? there are quite a few non-governmental organisations that are liberal.
10)see my reply to #8.
11) see my reply to #8
12) see my reply to #8.

Yeah, by the end I rather stopped trying. Mr John Hawkins really is being an utter moron in that article.

[mjr]

See what I mean? Gee whiz.