The Inconsistency of Liberal Logic
North Texas Daily, 2/01

Hopefully by now, all students at NT have had some training in the various forms of logic and the fallacies thereof.

Grammar and Composition classes, Mass Communication courses and some political science classes teach the very fundamentals of consistency and reasonable argument. Before graduating, a student should be familiar with terms such as “Ad Hominem” “Non Sequitur”, “Red Herring,” “Circular Reasoning,” “Bandwagon,” et cetera. (Please find a dictionary if you do not follow me).

Yet it still amazed me how many well-meaning activists, particularly liberals, fall into illogic and inconsistency. Allow me to quote some of the most recent examples.

CENSORSHIP

If you have read The Daily this week at all, surely you are familiar with the recent accusation regarding a band of students who allegedly shouted racist remarks to a group of high school football recruits who were touring campus Saturday.

The Daily staff printed the story as headline news. This angered several students, and stacks of The Daily were stolen and put into recycling bins. The threat of a lawsuit against the perpetrators is made, and the missing Dailys makes the headline of the next issue. You’ve heard it all before, so I won’t repeat it here.

Most students would agree freedom of the press is important and throwing away mass copies of the paper chips away at the unrestricted communication we enjoy in our society. But this has happened many times before, and nothing was said.

Just two years ago, several radical feminists symbolically burned a stack of an issue of The Daily that included a separate insert advertisement against abortion. Other radicals threw away other stacks around campus, missing the recycle bins completely. Little to nothing was said about it, except for a letter to the editor I had written. At least the recent thieves wanted to save trees by recycling The Daily.

An issue of The Daily that contained a controversial column written by me about homosexuality disappeared almost entirely. But you don’t see me crying.

I just fired up the photocopier and distributed extra copies to everyone I knew. There’s no stopping the press!

So why is it now that “the entire campus” is upset about the missing papers? Is it because we have been so conditioned by the mass media to be so adamantly anti-racist, that we are over-reacting the rogue actions of a handful of hate mongers who do not represent our values at all?

Inconsistency #1: Nobody cares if feminists or gay activists defile (or even burn) our beloved paper and suggest censorship. But if racists ever do the same, a press conference and civil rights publicity stunt is called.

A MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD

At the Green Party’s “Democracy Rally” at the Free Speech Area two weeks ago, a local attorney and Green Party activist read aloud a humorously crude and profanity-filled speech in order to publicly deride president George W. Bush.

Amidst the sparsely scattered logical arguments, the radical accused Bush of masturbation and Cocaine abuse—Hardly the stuff great speeches are made of. Throughout his ranting, he reminded the audience about his family and how he did not want such an “evil white man to lead the country” and provide a bad moral example for his children.

By the end of his speech, half of the audience consisted of would-be silent conservatives who stayed to help me argue with the various speakers at the rally.

When Kathleen Thompson of the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance came up to speak, and delivered the most rational argument of the rally. One of the conservative naysayers broke the silence by yelling, “That’s a load of bullshit!” He was indeed quite angry, and used several other words to get his point across. It wasn’t even five seconds before members of the College Democrats stood between Thompson and the audience member, shouting, “How dare you cuss at Kathleen!”

If they didn’t want profanity to be used in their rally, why did the liberals set the tone by choosing vulgar words for their previous speech?

Inconsistency #2: If a liberal curses and swears in public, it is considered “free speech.” If a conservative or other activist curses in public, it is likely to be considered “hate speech” and be taken as a serious threat.

W.A.S.P.S. NEED NOT APPLY

At the Roe V. Wade anniversary march the following Monday, a handful of anti-abortion activists rallied at the Courthouse-on-the-Square to protest a handful of pro-abortion marchers.

Despite the small turnout, the Denton Record Chronicle and The Daily was on hand to cover the event. Thompson was also at this event and was quoted in the Record-Chronicle.

Referring to the pro-life activists, Thompson said, “We’re a larger number than them and we have more women. They’re basically white men.”

If Thompson would visit an Eagles for Life meeting sometime, she would see that the females outnumber the males 3 to 1.

Also, a picture is worth a thousand words. On the front page of the DR-C were two large pictures—One of the pro-lifers and one of the pro-choicers. In the pro-choice pic, there are four marchers, consisting of two Caucasian males and two Caucasian females.

However, the pro-life picture represents more diversity. Yes, there are two dreaded White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the crowd. But on each side are two females, one Asian and the other Caucasian. There are two other men present in the picture, one is Italian and the other has a dark complexion as well.

There are several Hispanics in the Eagles for Life, and a majority of them are Catholic—Yet another minority in this nation.

In my humble opinion, the abortion issue has nothing to do with race or minority status, but rather with sexual and reproduction ethics.

Inconsistency #3: If pro-choice advocates march, they are portrayed as champions of diversity and justice. If pro-life advocates march, they are automatically assumed to be involved in the vast right-wing conspiracy, theoretically controlled by angry white anglo-saxon protestants whose sole purpose is to rid the world of sexual pleasure and darker skin pigment.

MUSICAL CHAIRS

Combining several issues in a single issue rally. Imagine if “conservatives” did so. “Seperation of church and state,” they would cry!

How I long for intellectual dialogue! When I think of the grand traditions of Oxford, Princeton, and Harvard, NT pales by comparison. I love my college, don’t get me wrong. But let’s take ourselves seriously, and think a moment before we react.