A cornucopia of convoluted corrupting fallacies (CC)

As we have been discussing fallacies in class, and we need look outside of our classwork for examples, I new I needed to look no further than the Holy grail of fallacious reasoning and rhetoric, a veritable treasure trove of examples and a testimony to just how bad people's reasoning can be - Conservapedia. Written from "a self described American conservative and Christian point of view" (Wikipedia), it is also described by it's rival site, RationalWiki, as a " purposefully deceitful, heavily biased, conservative blog project  encyclopedia project". The site's use of fallacies are quite literally too numerous to list (as you will discover if you visit the site yourself), but I will list 3 of the best one here for your enjoyment. 

A good place to start is the page on Liberals. "A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as the censorship of Christianity.". My Webster's  dictionary says otherwise. "Liberal: Not literal or strict; tolerant; favoring reform or progress.". Wikipedia defines liberalism as "A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.". This is a very clear, yet poorly executed, example of a straw man fallacy.

Moving on down the auricle into a list of what "liberals" support and or practice, I see more fallacies than I even really care to mention. They seem to greatly using the appeal to tradition fallacy, as things listed include "Anti-Americanism", "Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on", "Ending western morality", and "Denial of traditional gender roles". None of these arguments have any real substance behind them, merely hollow appeals to tradition.

Moving even deeper into the article, we find this gem of a section "Liberalism and bestiality", entirely based on the total skewing, debasement and slandering of a professor of ethics, Peter Singer. They claim he supports such things as bestiality, infanticide, necrophilia, etc. etc. you get the idea. These claims are, of course, entirely false, but moreover than that the argument of the entire section is a a kind of reverse genetic fallacy, as well as a false cause and effect fallacy. Peter Singer supports bestiality, Peter Singer is a liberal, therefore liberals support bestiality. The article also repeatedly talks about the connection between atheists and liberals, and below the section it has a link to an entirely separate article about "Atheism and bestiality". Implying the argument that "Liberals are Atheists, Liberals support bestiality, therefore Atheism leads to bestiality" - wait what? Either way, there you have it, a genetic and false cause and effect fallacy all wrapped up into one nice little package.

I could write for pages and pages about the hundreds if not thousands of fallacies they employ throughout their thousands of pages of swiss-cheese consistency writing. But frankly, I have better things to do with my time, and I'm worried that that would just dignify it.

So I leave you with a link, and a quote from Dante. 

"Abandon all hope ye who enter here"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page