Ken Cuccinelli Quotes

I hate all that woozy political and psychotherapeutic crap applied to books and art.

People today sometimes get uncomfortable with empirical claims that seem to clash with their political assumptions, often because they haven't given much thought to the connections.

When you want to attack your opponent’s position, first you have to attack it rationally.

Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of making accurate moral judgments.

When any opinion leads to absurdity, it is certainly false; but it is not certain that an opinion is false because it is of dangerous consequence.

Men can reason themselves into almost any sort of opinion if they are so inclined.

Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question.

Obviously something is wrong with the entire argument of "obviousness".

Of course I am partisan in my politics, but my partisanship is rational - which, in my book, is not necessarily oxymoronic.

If you challenge multiculturalism you are seen to be a racist. But it's a political philosophy that needs to be looked at. If you don't, you're taking it on trust, which is intellectually dishonest.

If you start thinking about politics in an intellectual way, you are likely to be on the left because that provides a systematic solution and answer to the questions and puts it all in a system and also gives you a rather dignified and self-congratulatory place in the system. But once you started thinking, if you think about harder and longer about it, you’ll move back to what you would have been if you’d never thought at all.

There is nothing more effectual in showing us the weakness of any habitual fallacy or assumption than to hear it sympathetically through the ears, as it were, of a skeptic.

I hope you become comfortable with the use of logic without being deceived into concluding that logic will inevitably lead you to the correct conclusion.

The believing mind reaches its perihelion in the so-called Liberals. They believe in each and every quack who sets up his booth inthe fairgrounds, including the Communists. The Communists have some talents too, but they always fall short of believing in the Liberals.

We thought philosophy ought to be patient and unravel people's mental blocks. Trouble with doing that is, once you've unravelled them, their heads fall off.

If partisanship makes us abandon intellectual honesty, if we oppose what our opponents say or do simply because they are the ones saying or doing it, we become mere political short-sellers, hoping for bad news because it's good for our ideological investment.

All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason logically

Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

A classic liberal is more like a libertarian. I'm sorry. Classic liberal, actually, from the 1800s has a totally different meaning than a liberal who is [modern] classic.

Though they were Liberals they were not democrats; nor yet infidels.

But with man the case is otherwise, in that when logic leads to any humiliating conclusion, the sole effect is to discredit logic.

For Conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing.

No one attacks loose-thinking and folly with half the precision and zest of Thomas Szasz.

Liberalism is a series of grievances in addition to everything else that it is.

So you see how endlessly futile and fruitless it would be if we wanted to refute their objections every time they obstinately resolved not to think through what they say but merely to speak, just so long as they contradict our arguments in any way they can.