The Method of the Con

The Socratic method is under attack

We are less likely to debate

A flawed group think identity

That only wants to berate

When you emotionalize an argument

You diminish your ability to reason

The sophistry begins

As it is now open season

The Platonic dialogue Georgias

Philosophy is an art

Not the mere rhetoric

That is shown to fall apart

Today’s world is rapidly increasing

With the intellectually impoverished youth

An educational system collapsing

Under our failure to teach what is truth?

Debate should never be stifled

Our liberty to engage the critic must go on

Only the merit of logic

Will illuminate the method of the con

DCG

My Soul is not for Sale

My faith has been tested

My eyes have received confirmation

My soul is not for sale

My truth is my salvation

I take on my obstacles

I take them as they come

I learn from my mistakes

I modify my thinking to correctly plumb

Why do I fail?

Why is the question to ask

Why do I repeat?

Why is put to task

Clarify what is rubbish

Clarify the path I am on

Clarify what is good

Clarify what is wrong

Verify what is working

Simplify erroneous measures

Verify what is most important

Rectify misleading pleasures

DCG

WikiPsalm #Thirteen

There are times when we wake

From a trance like sleep

Giving in to an inner voice

Making promises we can’t keep

It is precisely in this time

We should vindicate our aspiration

Acknowledging a conflict building

Within this mindful vexation

Become clear about what is important

Clarify this in your deeds

Do not let unworthy influence

Give council that often misleads

WikiPsalm #Thirteen

DCG

Tender my Frustration


Tender my frustration

Only the law abiding will pay

A state can never impose any law

That the criminal will ever obey

Tender my frustration

The working man’s plea

There is no incentive to work

When you collect off the taxpayer’s assist

Wait, what else can I take as a perk

Tender my frustration

What’s mine is mine

What’s yours is yours

Learn to make it on your own

But you’ve gotta do your chores

Tender my frustration

Words are words

Often the politically correct

Use a narrative to bend logic

Only to misdirect

Tender my frustration

I know I’m not alone

Only by working together

Cutting through all of the hormone

Tender my frustration

We must find a way

Else we will parish

Under the boot in the face or the bullets that ricochet

DCG

I am the Peacock

Sally just Tweeted

Her opinion of the day

Like-minded people

Showing their dismay

The expression of ideas

Social media threads

Emotional argumentation

Of people with some not well-read

I am the peacock

Watch me as I strut

See my pretty plumage

I am purebred and not a mutt

Sam just posted a YouTube

It’s on the internet so it must be true

He’s certain of it’s authenticity

But still the matter is up to you

Who Compares and Despairs?

Inspecting another persons post

Is this your orientation?

Be ready for the roast

So many opinions

So many ways to disseminate

How do you see the world?

How do you calculate?

The digital divide

Those who produce and those who consume

Who makes the virtue signals?

Are we tolerant; do we make any room?

Make a page on Facebook

Send a SnapChat

Maybe my Instagram

Will change some of that

We all want to be right

We all want to make sense

Start not by politicizing your opinion

Opinion means nothing

To those who defy pretense

Even the bloggers

Who try very hard

Sometimes get it wrong

Create their own canard

So where can we find any Truth?

Not in a comedy show

Not on the media streams

Believe in these sources and you’ll probably eat crow

Turn not to Science

This is not the domain

Paste another example

Able to defeat Man’s bane

Finding this answer

Our history shows us best

Turn to the philosopher

‘Tis only in logic that we can attest

DCG

 

 

 

Divide and Conquer 


Johnny can’t read

Sister Eve is autistic

Growing up with entitlements

Have we now become masochistic?

Put a stop to these despots

Before we fall too far under control

Remember Orwell’s boot in the face

Was also on his patrol

Weaponized society

With anger and fear

Inequality and bigotry as the narrative

Logic soon disappears

Listen to the liars

Over and over again

Repeating begats believing

Adults like children

Continue to pretend

The trouble with a population

That will be torn up from within

If you continue to fight amongst each other

How soon the end will begin

Beat up ourselves

Not knowing the Masters pulling the strings

So keep your eyes on the ball

Do not fight over nonsensical things

Ask a Buddhist

How to be clear

They will give you an eight fold path

One that is real- one that is sincere

Ask a Scientologist

How to be clear

They will give you a lifelong membership

With the price tag only a cult member will endear

The feeble-minded members

The majority of the masses

The weakest link of the chain

In the chain of all the classes

Daddy please tell me

Did you fight for liberty?

No little girl

I fought for climate change and the Paris agreement

I spent all my time in this tirelessly

Nonsense is nonsense

To not see is foolish, I’d hope you’d agree

The corruption of public office

Our forefathers did foresee

DCG

Don’t try to shock Mr. Spock

9c1c4e1e2b3f19a1c195653eefbc5aa6

At what cost do we tread upon the woven fabric of society that is now dividing us because we think we have knowledge that fuses our disagreements into becoming weaponized moral issues?  Are we so disconnected that we believe we are the only privileged owners of truthful information when we find ourselves in different corners of a debate?  Is our world view that much different to begin with?  Why is there so much tumultuous rhetoric being flung toward our conversations these days?  I need only look to the “lame-stream” media to proclaim the child-like arguments many people seem to fall into before they see fit to unravel the chaotic rubbish embedded into the premises uttered.  Even our educational systems feed politically correct agendas.

What is the source of our information to begin with?  How do we know it is truthful, factual, or correct?  This author believes whether we know it or not, we are in a cultural information war that is reaping havoc upon all of us.

Having healthy debates over issues is rightfully good if and only if the debaters allow the other to speak their minds freely without resorting to name calling and actually listen to the side of their respective opponents.  I find that most people cannot properly debate their discussions on a social media platform among others.  They do not follow any ascribed rules, but rather they tend to ramble on a diatribe of content that is not brought out into the argument with any integrity and tangles much of the content in logical paradox.  If we make assumptions without proper analysis, then we can continue a conversation that will be laden with errors of logical deductions.

A few pointers for having fair intellectual debates:

  • 1st) Never Use A Personal Point To Debate The Validity Of Someone Else’s Factual Point
  • 2nd) An Argument Against A Reputable Expert Can Only Be Made By Another Reputable Expert
  • 3rd) Emotional Responses Are Typically Full Of It
  • 4th) Always Let The Other Person Speak
  • 5th) Don’t be Long Winded – Make Your Points In As Few Words As Possible
  • 6th) Lure and Destroy
  • 7th) The Best Way To Respond To Name Calling: Silence
  • 8th) The More References, The Better Your Chances Of Influencing Your Opponent
  • 9th) Any Question That Anyone Asks You May Be Loaded
  • 10th) Emotion Is Not Your Friend

When will we be free of this dishonest blather?  If we do not approach one another with any constraint, we are destined to fall into baffled ruin like the children of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies!

The lessons of Mr. Spock could come in handy!

spock-vulcans-25142052-500-261

 

YS

 

The Cult of Persuasion

statue depicting a sad woman in recoleta cemetery, buenos aires - argentina

We would all like to believe that we are independent free thinkers that can formulate original ideas and assess the validity of the opinions’ of others but I have found much of this to be an illusion and contrarily this foretold claim is not present in most people I’ve encountered.  Do you know someone that belongs to a cult?   The answer may surprise you!

If you shut down debate by emotionalizing an argument, or if you appeal to the many ways of false ad hominem arguments, then you are effectively letting your bias interfere with your critical thinking.  These techniques are numerous in social media and conversation today.

 See various common forms of fallacious arguments:(https://thundergodblog.com/2014/01/20/logical-fallacies-and-false-syllogisms/)

 

Mirriam Webster

Definition of cult

  1. 1 :  formal religious veneration :  worship

  2. 2 :  a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also :  its body of adherents

  3. 3 :  a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also :  its body of adherents

  4. 4 :  a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

  5. 5 a :  great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially :  such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b :  the object of such devotion c :  a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

The overlap of cults and culture

Cult, which shares an origin with culture and cultivate, comes from the Latin cultus, a noun with meanings ranging from “tilling, cultivation” to “training or education” to “adoration.” In English, cult has evolved a number of meanings following a fairly logical path. The earliest known uses of the word, recorded in the 17th century, broadly denoted “worship.” From here cult came to refer to a specific branch of a religion or the rites and practices of that branch, as in “the cult of Dionysus.” By the early 18th century, cult could refer to a non-religious admiration or devotion, such as to a person, idea, or fad (“the cult of success”). Finally, by the 19th century, the word came to be used of “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.”

In my observance of everyday conversation in social media I have noticed trends in the structure of assertions others make in their communications.  Because of my own educational background, I have found problematic logical anomalies in these common assertions that seem to sway the beliefs of the unsuspecting participants.  This is unfortunate because after studying these exchanges of dialog, it is clear some people fall into the trappings of these logical fallacies that persuade many others despite the flawed reasoning.
The “hive” mind is observed in a conversation that often resorts to using misrepresented data points to further an argument.  If you vet the source of the statistical inferences, carefully look at the data, then it is possible to clear the argument of bias and strip it down without convolution of the premise.  Much of what we find today is loaded with misleading false narratives that are designed to sway you by lacing the argument with an emotional bias and sophistry.

One can easily recall the advertising industry to see countless and baseless examples of using fallacious and emotionalized narratives to sell their products.  Actually you can find many examples in how our own government agencies use language and semantics to further a cause.  Look at money and our current financial economic policies.  Banking regulations, fiat currencies, and legal jargon prevent many people from understanding its design and is used against them all the time.  It was written not for the people, but rather is written to benefit the private bankers, financiers who authored these systems.  Simply look to the federal reserve; a private bank in control of deflating and inflating our currency backed by nothing, (fiat currency) which has usurped the constitution altogether.

When we bring in the debt of printing this fraudulent currency waged against the people, we invent a non-ratified, unappropriated tax on our labor to help pay for this unconstitutional agency called the Federal Reserve which controls the Internal Revenue Service.  Since we have been duped into believing that we have to pay this tax, (amendment) people usually do or risk of having house and home taken away.  Our culture is full of this kind of bureaucracy that has poisoned the wells of the intellectually free minded citizens.  Scores of educational controversy has taken root in our school systems.  The subversive takeover of our children’s minds has historical precedence in many countries around the world.  In the country we have dealt with “no child left behind”, and “common core” among earlier infusions of propagandizing the “red scare” to our school children.

Persuasion itself is not under attack in this piece.  Rather, the logical fallacies that are used to persuade people is!  Debate is something I believe to be a healthy productive activity, but when you are diminished by being called a fascist, racist, or some other explicative; under false premises, than I think we have a problem.  The trend for foggy thinking is unprecedented in current times.  (Simply look at the 2016 presidential election).  This is clear especially when other people do not like what you stand for if it does not agree with their world view.  They will simply refute without paying attention to what you are saying if it is contrary to their beliefs.  People without a healthy cognitive grip use the narratives that only support their world view.  They tend not to use critical thinking skills to uncover the dust of confusion and propaganda that was designed to hinder their thinking in the first place.

https://i1.wp.com/i.imgur.com/yvn6iII.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/i.imgur.com/0zC7gQw.jpg

Ask yourself this question.  How many people do you know on your social media feeds that spend a great deal of time posting about political memes and articles that intend to further a cause?  They don’t post much about their own family, yet they consume much of their time commenting on politically charged articles that beg to engender some kind of sympathy towards their post.  I see these posts all the time and I am distressed by their diminished capacity for critical thinking when reading these pieces.  All political parties take part and no one social group is excluded.

Social control in a society is a very difficult venture.  The more control the state has, the less the people can do other than a revolution.

Image result for democratic party cult memes

My problem with many of my associations is that I look at the argument from a philosophical viewpoint.  I look at the structure of the argument before I usually make a judgement on the meaning and beliefs about the argument.  I use my filters before I render a decision.   Maybe this is why I see so many abuses of language, semantics, logic, and thinking in others who wish to tell me their opinions that it makes me a bit saddened.  I am disheartened  after reading many of these posts from even my own family members.

I must admit the most atrocious posts tend to rely on the ignorance of those believing in them.  If we look at the current political climate, I tend to find that the Democratic party (USA) is the most tenacious and ruthless group of people bent on the domination and oppression of people.  I’m sure one can find many examples of both parties corruptible attributions in their expression, but if I were to focus on one, than the Democratic party and the mainstream media in the United States is by far the worst I have ever seen.

If you look at the social posts of today, and with a corruptible mass media that is telling the lie over and over again, (i.e. climate change, dividing us group by group by calling us racist, ad infinitum), than maybe we are falling for this political paradigm that is misleading us away from the constitution?

There are countless memes used to shut debate.  The assumptions made in many of these memes are fallacious and ridiculous, but on the other hand many simple-minded people tend to fall for them.  I hope not to offend any readers.  I myself am peeved by the outrageous claims that others do not share my belief system, yet we are exposed to the same set of data points and arguments made to us by educators, family and friends or business associates.  Heck, the internet alone if used properly can be a useful tool if you know the pitfalls, along with fully researching the information.

In conclusion I claim that the cult like activities seen in protest rallies around the USA in 2016 are full of propaganda.  The George Soros funded events around the globe were designed to plunder the outcomes of those that globalists oppose to gain credibility in these false scenarios.  If you read the Wikileaks emails, if you “think for yourself” and not allow others to think for you, you have half of the problem solved in the critical analysis of information that is highly politicized in this day and age.  I happen to believe that the democratic party (and much of our government), has sold us out, and does not believe in the constitution.  The democratic party demonstrates it’s policy in communicating like a cult!  Look at the voting record through-out history and see how the democratic party traditionally voted.  If you look it up on the voting record the party voted against civil rights legislation, they are the party that supported slavery, they are now against the 2nd amendment, and against the 4th amendment in the previous Obama administration.  They are against the 13th amendment, among many others that they have spun to impune their opposition and suggest the other party are the ones that are against the people.  I am completely open to agree if there are truths about these claims, yet I find little evidence to support them despite some differences in modern-day political party corruption cases.  Yes it does happen in both parties.  Yes, I try not to be partisan, but I find many cases used as examples of my thesis in this claim that are overwhelming and complicit in the evidence mentioned.

If you would like more examples, just pay attention to your local social media feed, or turn on the television and watch the news.

The historical accounts of propaganda are definitely home grown.  Before Hitler and others, there was Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, can be considered the father of public relations and propaganda. Bernays literally wrote the book on propaganda, public relations, and manipulating public opinion.  Yes, Bernays was born in Vienna, and later moved to America becoming an American publicist.  His notorious book written in 1929 was Propaganda.

Reception and Impact
Despite the relative significance of Propaganda to twentieth century media history and modern public relations, surprisingly little critique of the work exists. Public relations scholar Curt Olsen argues that the public largely accepted Bernays’ “sunny” view of propaganda, an acceptance eroded by fascism in the World War II era.[12] Olsen also argues that Bernays’s skill with language allowed terms such as “education” to subtly replace darker concepts such as “indoctrination.”[13] Finally, Olsen criticizes Bernays for advocating “psychic ease” for the average person to have no burden to answer for his or her own actions in the face of powerful messages.[14] On the other hand, writers such as Marvin Olasky justify Bernays as killing democracy in order to save it.[15] In this way, the presence of an elite, faceless persuasion constituted the only plausible way to prevent authoritarian control.[16] Concepts outlined in Bernays’ Propaganda and other works enabled the development of the first “two-way model” of public relations, using elements of social science in order to better formulate public opinion.[17] Bernays justified public relations as a profession by clearly emphasizing that no individual or group had a monopoly on the true understanding of the world.[18] According to public relations expert Stuart Ewen, “What Lippman set out in grand, overview terms, Bernays is running through in how-to-do-it-terms.”[19] His techniques are now staples for public image creation and political campaigns.[20]

 

resources:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mindcon27.htm

http://www.cultwatch.com/howcultswork.html

http://www.mindcontrolandcults.com/in-cult

Cult Behaviour: An Analysis

http://rense.com/general80/fon.htm

http://nypost.com/2015/03/08/the-cult-of-hillary-dems-stumble-unquestioningly-into-2016/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://russp.us/racism.htm

https://skeptic78240.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/quick-history-lesson/

 

 

Logical Fallacies and False Syllogisms

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Strong arguments are void of logical fallacies, whilst arguments that are weak tend to use logical fallacies to appear stronger than they are. They’re like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians, the media, and others to fool people.
Don’t be fooled!

STRAWMAN

Misrepresenting someone’s argument to
make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
After Will said that we should put more money into
health and education, Warren responded by saying that
he was surprised that Will hates our country so much
that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting
military spending.

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER

Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an
argument, or finding a pattern to fit a
presumption.
This ‘false cause’ fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he’s a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don’t necessarily show that there is a causal relationship.
The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to
research showing that of the five countries where
Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in
the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore
Sugarette drinks are healthy.

AD HOMINEM

Attacking your opponent’s character
or personal traits in an attempt to
undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.
After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case
for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the
audience whether we should believe anything from a
woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and
smells a bit weird.

LOADED QUESTION

Asking a question that has an
assumption built into it so that it can’t be
answered without appearing guilty.
Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature – the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot.
Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in
Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace
asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having
any problems with a fungal infection.

THE GAMBLERS FALLACY

Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically
independent phenomena such as roulette
wheel spins.
This commonly believed fallacy can be said to have helped create an entire city in the desert of Nevada USA. Though the overall odds of a ‘big run’ happening may be low, each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last. So whilst there may be a very small chance that heads will come up 20 times in a row if you flip a coin, the chances of heads coming up on each individual flip remain 50/50, and aren’t influenced by what happened before.
Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette
wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that
black would be next up.  Suffering an economic form of
natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of
his savings.

BANDWAGON

Appealing to popularity or the fact that
many people do something as an
attempted form of validation.
The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.  If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.
Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked
him to explain how so many people could believe in
leprechauns if they’re only a silly old superstition.
Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness
himself and fell off of his chair.

BLACK OR WHITE

Where two alternative states are
presented as the only possibilities, when
in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally
undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told
the people they were either on his side, or on the side
of the enemy.

BEGGING THE QUESTION

A circular argument in which the
conclusion is included in the premise.
This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it’s not very good.
The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We
know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible
Book of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things that are
Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

Using the opinion or position of an
authority figure, or institution of
authority, in place of an actual argument.
It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
Not able to defend his position that evolution ‘isn’t true’
Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions
evolution (and presumably isn’t a primate).

APPEAL TO NATURE

Making the argument that because
something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid,
justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.
Many ‘natural’ things are also considered ‘good’, and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn’t make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s good or justifiable.
The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon
offering various natural remedies, such as very special
plain water. He said that it was only natural that
people should be wary of ‘artificial’ medicines such
as antibiotics.

COMPOSITION/DIVISION

Assuming that what’s true about one part
of something has to be applied to all, or
other, parts of it.
Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.
Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic.
He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was
made of atoms and therefore invisible too.
Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game
of hide and go seek.

ANECDOTAL

Using personal experience or an isolated
example instead of a valid argument,
especially to dismiss statistics.
It’s often much easier for people to believe someone’s testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more ‘abstract’ statistical reality.
Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his
grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived
until 97 – so don’t believe everything you read about
meta analyses of sound studies showing proven
causal relationships.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

Making what could be called an appeal to
purity as a way to dismiss relevant
criticisms or flaws of an argument.
In this form of faulty reasoning one’s belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn’t apply to a supposedly ‘true’ example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one’s argument.
Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on
their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a
Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a
true Scot, Angus yells that no
true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

MIDDLE GROUND

Saying that a compromise, or middle
point, between two extremes is the truth.
Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.
Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children,
but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this
claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend
Alice ooffered a compromise that vaccinations cause
some autism.

GENETIC

Judging something good or bad on the
basis of where it comes from, or from
whom it comes.
This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Accused on the 6 o’clock news of corruption and taking
bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary
of the things we hear in the media, because we all
know how very unreliable the media can be.

AMBIGUITY

Using double meanings or ambiguities of
language to mislead or misrepresent the
truth.
Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.
When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn’t
paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn’t have to
pay them because the sign said ‘Fine for parking here’
and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to
park there.

FALSE CAUSE

Presuming that a real or perceived
relationship between things means that
one is the cause of the other.
Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.
Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how
temperatures have been rising over the past few
centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of
pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the
world and global warming is a hoax.

THE FALLACY FALLACY

Presuming that because a claim has been
poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made,
that it is necessarily wrong.
It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.
Recognizing that Amanda had committed a fallacy in
arguing that we should eat healthy food because a
nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should
therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

APPEAL TO EMOTION

Manipulating an emotional response in
place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.
Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped
liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to
think about the poor, starving children in a third world
country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any
food at all.

TU QUOQUE

Avoiding having to engage with criticism
by turning it back on the accuser –
answering criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
The blue candidate accused the red candidate of
committing the tu quoque fallacy. The red candidate
responded by accusing the blue candidate of the same,
after which ensued an hour of back and forth criticism
with not much progress.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Saying that the burden of proof lies not
with the person making the claim, but
with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment,
in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars,
and that because no one can prove him wrong his
claim is therefore a valid one.

PERSONAL INCREDULITY

Saying that because one finds something
diffcult to understand that it’s therefore
not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with
effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we
were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow
turned into a human through just, like, random things
happening over time.

SPECIAL PLEADING

Moving the goalposts to create exceptions
when a claim is shown to be false.
Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one’s mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It’s usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one’s own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us.
Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his
‘abilities’ were tested under proper scientific conditions,
they magically disappeared. Edward explained this
saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for
them to work.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Asserting that if we allow A to happen,
then Z will consequently happen too,
therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypothetical’s.  Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypothetical’s will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples
to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be
allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys

The Interogation of Enigma and The Architects of Fiction

The Architects of Fiction, the sophists, the propaganda of those that may themselves believe what they are told to believe, but at what price?  The myth’s sold to the public by a colossus opinion generating machine are a common place these days.  What do you stand for?  What sources do you trust?

The tales of many fabricators will go down in recorded history as fact, when they are designed to obfuscate the truth from those that would seek the answers.  These storytellers are just the minions from a distortion of the truth that exceeds even their known biases and collusion’s by the masters of the medium they work in.

There are countless examples of distortion espoused in everyday media, distortion of what is approved for our textbooks in schools, distortion of what is also taught in our classrooms, what is thought be the dominant paradigms of science, history, and religion are likely imposed upon us unless we do not challenge what would be accepted as the status quo.  My first introduction into a deeper understanding of the world was really felt when I became a student of Philosophy.  It was then that I was challenged to think beyond the opinion of others, to question the logic in any given argument.  It was during that time when I was given a toolkit that I could use to overcome the problems that would escape many who did not ask the proper questions about the information they would receive.  I do not claim by any stretch of the imagination that I hold some superior intellect that can thwart the rubbish produced by many of these publications and sources, as I find myself continually struggling to find continuity, and trying to sort out the evidence given.  What I do find to help me in reconciling these questions that I ask is a persistent desire to uncover stories that attract my attention.  Peal the onion skin back one more layer.  I understand there will be many of times I will fail to grasp the whole truth of the matter, but that will not stop me asking the questions.

I reference the Copernican revolution, the Inquisition, The selected books by Constantine when adopting the current known bible we know of today as we have found that there were other sources of books left out called the Gnostic Gospels that were deemed Heresy. (See The gnostic quill)  Also one should include events such as the Trojan Horse, The AIDS virus, 9/11, Chem-trails, Use of Floride, Use of Thiomersal (Mercury) in Vaccines,  Global Warming, The gulf of Tonkin incident, Income Taxes, JFK, Theory of Evolution, Codex Alimentarius, ad infinitum.

As Henley puts it….

I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry
Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don’t have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em all around
We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you ’bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
It’s interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry
You don’t really need to find out what’s going on
You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re stiff
Kick ’em all around
Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody’s pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry
We can do “The Innuendo”
We can dance and sing
When it’s said and done we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that Crap is King
Give us dirty laundry!

Look also to the examples in other medium, as even the fictional accounts of characters runs a very ironic parallel to the world as we know it.  (See Frank Capra’s 1941 movie Meet John Doe, or his 1939 movie Mr Smith Goes to Washington.  Also see Aaron Russo’s 2006 Documentary America: From Freedom to Fascism)

Before you make up your mind about what you see, hear, read, or are led to believe by your peers, think a bit more about where this information came from, who will benefit or profit from it, and who has the power to keep it afloat?  The constitution gave us protections that are eroding from a malignancy and thus is under attack from an assault within our own country.  Thomas Jefferson among others warned us of this.

If https://i2.wp.com/constitutionus.com/images/we_the_people.jpg exercise our ability to sift through the fiction, demand accountability in governance, then maybe we have a chance in sustaining our country until the next coup tries to take us from it.  For now the decision is up to us, for how long this will remain true, I cannot say.

the best teachers

Educate yourself without the distortions of the nimble minded media.  Look to other sources of information when conducting an investigation into the most serious questions of our time in the political arena’s…. see this next article below

Abel Danger