Petitio Principii OR The Politics of Solipsism

Hardball asked a bunch of college kids what “what do you want to hear your candidate say tonight?” A Kerry supporter answered that she wanted to hear specifics adding, “I believe in him, now I want to hear it.”

This is one of my complaints about Liberals. They assume the conclusion and go looking for the proof. Of course, I have more examples to prove my case.

The Dan famously proved this point recently. He basically, but not actually, admitted that those documents were forged. He was careful to point out, though, that nobody has been able to disprove the main thrust of the story – the story backed up by the false documents.

Paul Krugman said on Tuesday

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about … The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

He also said on 7.2.04

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain…

What allows them to commit this classic logical fallacy, the Petitio Principii? I submit that they do not understand the opposing position, the conservative position, at all. Instead of actually trying to understand it, they just reject it and that only leaves their own position. Now if they can just find facts to make it seem true…