Is it better to be a liberal or a conservative?

This argument was attributed to on Wednesday April 14, 2011 by THE ONE; an active Bolger on sodahead.com. The argument gives the view point of a conservative. The full argument presents eleven examples of how individuals make different decisions regarding various situations in life when they are conservative verses being liberal. To fully understand the argument it can be rewritten as follows.

Tolerant Conservative/Non Tolerant Liberal

Premise 1: Instead of being a liberal and wondering who will take care of them when they are down and out, conservatives are tolerant, happy and better their situation.

Premise 2: Liberals see themselves as victims in need of government protection instead of independent successful and tolerant like conservatives.

Premise3: Liberals shut down everyone they do not like instead of tolerating them like conservatives.

Premise 4: Conservative non believers tolerate any mention of God and choose not to go to church while liberals want the mention of God to be silenced.

Happier Conservative/Non Happy Liberal

Premise 5: A conservative is happier than a liberal when he slips and falls in a store.

Premise 6: His happiness allows him to get up, laugh at himself and be humbly embarrassed instead of grabbing his neck, moaning like he is in labor and trying to sue like liberals do.

Premise 7: A conservative is more happy and tolerant enough to forward this to his friend and laugh instead of deleting it like an offended liberal would do.

Conclusion: Since conservatives are happier and more tolerant, it is better to be a conservative than a liberal.

THE ONE continuously attributes the part to the whole. Attributing the part to the whole is a composition fallacy. In premise two the arguer attributes the feeling of being a victim and wanting government protection to all liberals. Part of the Liberal group may feel like victims and may need government protection, but part of the group does not constitute for the whole group. The same can be applied to the idea of liberals shutting down everyone they do not like. Some liberals may indeed shut down everyone they do not like, but all liberals may not feel that way. THE ONE continues to attribute actions and feelings of part of the liberal group to the entire liberal group as he gives examples of situations that conservatives and liberals may be involved in.

Even if THE ONE had taken a sample of thirty liberals who had been involved in the various situations given in his premise, he could not take the sample of liberals and make a claim about the entire population of liberals. This would have caused THE ONE to commit a hasty generalization fallacy. After taking a sample of thirty liberals, THE ONE could argue that Part of the liberal group is less tolerant and less happy, so it may be better to be a conservative. It is always unhealthy to attribute a part to a whole. Until the part has been applied to the whole properly this article will remain in critical condition. The full argument of THE ONE was not presented here, and the argument was paraphrased and put into premise conclusion format.