Conservapedia:Conservapedian fallacy
From RationalWiki
The Conservapedian fallacy is a kind of logical fallacy that takes one of two complementary forms. It is most closely related to poisoning the well, though it is also associated with a number of other logical fallacies (see below). It is named after the website, Conservapedia, on which it originated (and where it is currently the primary means of refuting any and all logic). Note: the formal statement (what formal statement?) of the fallacy leaves unstated (it certainly does) the premise upon which the fallacy is based, namely that all liberal ideas are obviously and inherently irrational, arrogant, naive, etc.
- Conservapedia user A disagrees with claim C.
- Claim C is liberal.
OR
- Conservapedia user A dislikes or disagrees with user B.
- User B is a typical liberal moron.
- And where do we go from here?
The Conservapedian fallacy is notable for amalgamating an enormous number of logical fallacies into a single fallacy including, but not limited to, poisoning the well, personal attack, guilt by association, hasty generalization, red herring, and appeal to tradition.
Despite the host of logical fallacies associated with the Conservapedian fallacy, Conservapedia administrators almost always enforce the fallacy's secondary conclusion, that all liberal claims must be removed and that all typical liberal morons must be summarily and indefinitely banned without warning. The most prevalent explanation for this illogical behavior is that it is an evolutionary mechanism developed to allow for the survival of Conservapedia, which would otherwise have long ago succumbed to reason. This is especially ironic considering that many (or most) Conservapedians do not believe in evolution.
