___Force of Destiny________________________________2000+ Free world Best Books_________________________________Logic Law__
Skip intro & Jump to the Fallacy list by Questor ©
|
|
T Contradictions, Contrarieties & Fallacies of conduct. A thorough treatise and guide. From and for practical use in everyday life. New and modern fallacies. A new beginning. Page 1 Page 2 |
|
Contradictions, Contrarieties & Fallacies of conduct. By Questor © A completely new set of 100 modern fallacies starting here. A thorough treatise and guide. From and for practical use in everyday life. Contradictions, pure forms of contrariety, contrarieties and fallacies. These pages are focussed on the fallacies of rule and template driven structures, where decisions are centralised, and the comparative minutiae of injustice are overwhelmed by purpose. It aims to reveal what IS behind what SEEMS, where power changes purpose. “Hence shall we see, If power change purpose, what our seemers be.“ MfM Shakespeare. |
|
A contradiction is where a thing and its own negation, cannot be true together, the truth of one proposition ENTAILS the falsity of its negation and vice versa. ~(P & ~P). 1st law of thought, a priori, tautologous and innate to thinking. May not be reconciled in this world, any world or any time within the frame of reference for its efficacy known to the thinking man. This excludes the microcosm and macrocosm that are of no practical significance in this era of cognitive essences. Opposites as contrarieties that are closest to the above pure contradiction in that a proposition and its OPPOSITE cannot be true together, but one or both may be false. However their joint falsity is unlikely in the extreme of illogicality, and the structure is consequently so close to a contradiction as to be deemed as such. Normal contrarieties and sub-contrarieties, are of the above form, but where the two propositions are not immediately seen to be opposites, merely members of similar concepts at different times, or of separate concepts. 13. Semantics: Just easy in the real world of nouns and trite sentences like “I like to call a spade a spade”, you just look at it and confirm its accurate correspondence. But when it comes to things like concepts and goals, it becomes a battleground of persuasion and dismantling what happened when or if one retreats in confusion........ The moment a mere utterance, like “Oh! Look at that bird!” becomes an utterance with a purpose, like “Oh that bird looks like a nice pheasant”, it's entered the world of semantics with ambiguous meanings. Nice might imply pretty, or else nice means “nice on the table for supper”. That's when the problems begin, and the mendacity of those in dubious authority falls to think tanks, ghost writers, and persuasion sound biters making fools out of all of us, unless we too have the equipment to dismantle the TRUTH – IN CORRESPONDENCE (theory) – between ambiguous meanings or senses, and reality. Essential sound reasoning goes without saying, but even those who I have encountered in authority are in deplorable want of integrity due to rule driven bias. When you add to this their bias, agenda, financial reward, purpose and function, the entire scene is set to abuse and insult the ordinary person's intelligence, delivering or even conferring upon him pure derogations and subtractions. This is not merely a game, it's a deadly one, where the abuse has reached the level of serious criminal negligence. |
|
Fallacy... _ 1. Deception, guile, trickery; a deception, trick; a false statement, a lie. Obs. b. Deceptiveness, aptness to mislead, unreliability. This treatise is aimed at the obsolete meanings -1. & b. above rather than the classic more formal ones below. 3. a. A deceptive or misleading argument, a sophism. In Logic esp. a flaw, material or formal, which vitiates a syllogism; any of the species or types to which such flaws are reducible. Also, sophistical reasoning, sophistry. In certain phrases in the formal terminology of Logic, as fallacy of accident (see quots.); fallacy of composition (see composition 4 b); fallacy of division, the fallacy that whatever is true of a whole must be true of any part or member of that whole. OED. The main fallacious types and ambiguities are treated here, |
|
Over 70 forms of fallacies of ambiguity and Written, illocutionary, perlocutionary, behavioural, acts, omissions, biased, agenda driven, teleological, psychological, direct, indirect, mens rea, mens mentis, et al, all attributes of the negligent ( in many cases criminally so ), darker side of human chameleons. Go down to the Fallacy list by Questor © A quest for truth....In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell |
INDEX
|
|
||||
|
13. A very different Fallacy list by Questor © These pages are focussed on the fallacies of rule and template driven structures, where decisions are centralised, and the comparative minutiae of injustice are overwhelmed by purpose. It aims to reveal what IS behind what SEEMS, where power changes purpose. “Hence shall we see, If power change purpose, what our seemers be. “ MfM Shakespeare.
.......So when the Local Government Ombudsman, and their friends the councils, tell you to take you in grievance to them, the LGO, it diverts your ire away from the council, to a rule driven structure with all the arguments already worked out. Like they investigate maladministration. Great, you have seen maladministration at work, and then half way through, they tell you they can ONLY investigate maladministration if you have suffered an injustice. That means if you haven't then goodbye, and let the maladministration proceed until someone, in their view does suffer, and I can tell you it has to be serious, not a matter of principle. Some forty staff and £11 million cost to the taxpayer, they only want the big stuff, we citizens with small grievance can wait for justice. Principles go out the window with these structures. The rules and categories have to be met, so trying to squeeze a problem thats not a true fit, is like putting a circle into a square. Kid's stuff really, but by the time you learn it all, you have lost your thread, and they've channeled your energy down a vacant alleyway.. Well, take this opportunity to learn some dismantling of those wretched semantics, some are here now, many are being written up. Become familiar with just a few words and a little literary critical analysis, and you will see through the fog of misinformation and misdirection, that is generated by large structures managed by ignoble minds. Fallacies may be committed quite innocently and in good faith. The question of good faith, is better clarified when there is a known, visible agenda, or revenue in the procedure, that subtracts – derogates the individual.. Otherwise, each fallacy is a potential minefield of wretched opportunism for prevailing illogically, without integrity. The essential difference between these fallacies and the classic formulation, is; the latter deals with tautologies arising from the three laws of thought, and the rules of reasoning derived from the ancient syllogism, and modern formal logic with the calculus of the same name, where this deals with fallacies in relationships between reality accurately and truthfully described without added value elements of persuasion, and, enhanced descriptions of that reality with added value elements of persuasion. This needs to be enlarged a bit further. A classical fallacy relies on the inconsistency between propositions arising from their formal relationships where there is no requirement to make any empirical observations whatsoever. In modern formal logic, these fallacies are similar to equations or algebraic expressions where a sentence is the subject of a variable in the calculus, like X+1=(X-1) + 2, as you can readily see ANY variable number for X will result in the equation always being true. 10+1=10-1+2, or 1005+1=1005-1+2. So the analogy carried over to propositions looks like ~( X . ~X) where '~' is the primitive symbol for the word NOT, '.' is the primitive for 'AND', and the brackets bind the level of the function. The is a law of thought, that of non contradiction. It is not the case that X AND NOT X can be true together simultaneously. Say X is the proposition 'This is a cat”. It is not the case that 'This is a cat” AND 'NOT This is a cat” These modern rules and their former heritage, have nothing to do with the real world, so for the word cat, you can substitute “Green eyed monster with 10 noses! The existence of the thing described does not affect the validity of the reasoning, only the truth of the conclusion is the argument if that they exists or not. This fallacy list is to do with THAT aspect of reality that is empirically observable, and the correspondence between the accurate description of that reality and the statement purporting to deal with that reality. A straight simple example, will show the area this treats with a Press Release by a government, large institution, council or otherwise say for example, Camden Council department for moving traffic contraventions, (Nice new name isn't it?). The numbers are just picked from a hat. During the year 2004- 2005, clamping cars for purposes of penalising their owners statistically increased by 51,000. Camden Spokesperson said the number of clamping operations, in line with new policy IS reducing! The fallacy is easy to see. The statement, describing reality that there is a decrease in the number of clamps, contradicts, or at least is contrary to the reality revealed by the statistics. Thus we have two propositions to test for truth. The proposition resultant from the statistical report, verified and officially attested, and the proposition resultant from the press release, designed to deliver artificial balm to a general public sense of outrage. The truth of one or other proposition relies on a correspondence theory that dictates the methodology of verification. What method was used to test the truth of the statistical report, and what for the press release, how reliable each method is, and thus, what ultimately is the truth? Hence locating precisely where the fallacious reasoning occurred. The fallacy is already obvious, the problem being, who is responsible for each proposition. If the statistical report is derived from a body other than the council, it is more likely to be true, since who on earth would like to state the obviously false, unless they believed the statistical report was far more private than the press release. If the statistical report came from the council themselves then it's even worse since it might appear both propositions were synthetically manufactured, with an emphasis perhaps on one word that is ambiguous, namely REDUCING. Now you see how the entire structure of mendacious correspondence is emphasised in an argument that while totally fallacious in its intent, may be actually true. What the spokesperson has in mind is that the RATE of increase in clamping is SLOWING, not the statistics themselves. It might just be August, so the while the annual rate of increase remains sustained, and unaltered, for the month of August it has slowed, due to absent holiday makers. This spokesperson has to be in a state of 'mens rea' associated with a derisory cognitive dissonance, that is to say, with a statement delivery made with levity, he has to be laughing inwardly at the atrocious achievement of persuading the public that respite is at hand, and the year on statistics will reveal an increase only when the statement for August, has been long forgotten. This is what the special fallacies section is all about.
|
||||
|
Introduction There are probably as many fallacies of argument and persuasion as there are adjectives and adverbs in any natural language. Think about it. Shakespeare said “there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” The argument – take away thinking, and there are no moral judgments. Language is the primary vehicle for moral judgments to be communicated, and any word qualifying a noun or verb, predicates something. Those predicates generally add or subtract a quality or moral value to the reference itself. The title here suggests falsely that all descriptions fitting any of the short set of categories below, have to be fallacies because they belong to the classification of these types. Nothing prevents any argument belonging to this classification from being a valid argument either in form, structure, or conclusion. Perfectly sound and reliably argument forms, can lead to either true or false conclusions, depending on the truth of their premisses. For example, All unicorns have a single horn, this deer has one horn , therefore it is a unicorn. It's empirical falsity or truth depends on the cause being genetic or the result of a fight, and if genetic, is it a mutation or the general rule for all deer, however it is not a match for the definition of a unicorn.. If it were a horse, then it is increasingly likely to conform to an instance of the legendary animal, no empirical verification can be made, but the definition is tautologous, the only undetermined aspect is whether it exists or not. Reasoning MUST be correct in virtue of its form as a primary basis for any cogency in the ensuing argument. To show this by example; A conclusion that; P is a plant, follows from P is not an Animal, or Mineral, but NOT formally, in accordance with the rules of logic, and laws of thought. One has to know the meanings of the terms . Whereas in; IF P is a plant, then P is NOT an Animal, (or Mineral). It follows formally to the point that one does NOT need to know the meanings of the words Plant, Vegetable or Mineral. It's the logical relationship between the words which can be seen by the formal expression, using standard notation in logic as P É ~Q, meaning IF P then NOT Q, or P implies NOT Q. ANY word, words. sentences, and propositions may be substituted for the variables P and Q and the logical relationship will still hold valid.
|
||||
|
Spoken, printed and other fallacious arguments. A written, spoken or otherwise communicated sentence, assertion or proposition that is
The fallacy below is derived from faithful & accurate descriptions of reality that are supposed to correspond with the sentences or propositions, used as their reference. If there is fidelity, then it follows there should be no fallacy, otherwise: As in I will do X, and doing Y ( generally the opposite ), the fallacy is in the flawed correspondences. The most invidious types of these mis-correspondences, is achieved with the use of a temporal separator, like delayed payment, see examples below in fuschia. A. i. Abrogation or breach, in duty of care, is a tort, without argument, save mitigation, in defence. This is a complex fallacy involving speech and written acts and their corresponding omissions while observing questionable conduct, under a procedure or set of rules allowing for discretion that is used selectively and prejudicially. ( when thinking of rules, you are reminded how intrusive they are to freedom in: “Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something.” -- Thomas A. Edison ). The fallacies are committed through a prominent display veiled by a cloak of procedures whose visage shows and argues, lawful conduct and constraint by a set of rules from which there is no alternative than to act 'ultra vires'. Discretion however; which is also lawful, being suppressed, is used selectively and prejudicially, to the contrary of honourable consistency and integrity. The entire practice is complex, and very difficult to pin down due to the volitional aspects of conduct that are embedded deep inside the thinking and directing mind(s) behind the process that is spread out, delegated, and broken apart in the separation of frames of reference for each person's responsibilities. Put simply by example, I have certain powers vested in me to lawfully pardon or punish depending on mitigating circumstance, I see a mitigating circumstance, but because I dislike the person's manner of conduct or wealth, choose to continue punishment where I would normally pardon. This is the selective abuse of the licence of discretion. It's a fallacy of inconsistency at the heart of which may also be blackmail, or invidious exchange. Here is a quote to consider...... ISABELLA. Ignominy in ransom and free pardon Are of two houses: lawful mercy Is nothing kin to foul redemption. Isabella asks for free pardon for her brother under sentence of death, Angelo will trade that pardon for a sexual encounter. It is a deplorable fallacy when used in the manner of both examples, and it is use with me at the time of writing, but shall be redressed. The only way through is to go straight for the directing mind(s) at the top. Such wilful tortfeasors, usually deport themselves in a manner befitting appropriate behaviour under the aforesaid lawful procedure that provides a veil to the unwritten or unspoken acts / omissions that are the essence of their fallacious argument in deportment. In effect,the moderate consistent use of discretion is abused, granting redemption to some but not others, on a subjective and prejudicial basis. It requires a keen perception to discern such circumspection wearing a cloak of apparent upright procedure. The veil disguises the disparate conduct, but is clearly seen when comparing the correspondence between spoken or written acts and their actualities, that is to say the De jure and the de facto deportment, or else in lay terms, by right in law, but nearly always opposed to the reality. What then has to be done, when examining the spoken or written acts, is to further analyse their aspects in locution as belonging to merely utterances, or persuasive utterances, and sentences. See the few definitions at illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. A tort ( Injury, Wrong. ) is a duty imposed by law, the breach of which; the wrong, renders the tortfeasor liable for an action in damages. Acts and omissions fall in to this category, the acts are obvious, but the omissions far more difficult to establish, with cross examination as to the 'mens rea', or 'mens mentis'. The other side of this conduct that mis-corresponds with duty, is perpetrated by a perquisite exchange of favours, like I will give you a peerage later, if you donate, or loan something to our party now that can be re described later as well. This masquerades under various embellishments with TIME as the prominent separator. You support us in this situation now, and when you retire we will provide you later with a circuit of lectures at £30-50,000 per session, and that shall pay off your liabilities quickly. You spend the weekend with me now,and I will put you down as a consultant / secretary providing services on the taxpayer's expense account for the foreseeable future. Normally these psuedo verbal contractual arrangements are made over 'working dinners' with a nod, wink and meaningful oeillade, - glance. FALSTAFF. I have writ me here a letter to her; and here
another to Page's wife, who even now gave me good eyes
too, examin'd my parts with most judicious oeillades;
sometimes the beam of her view gilded my foot, sometimes my
portly belly.In the preparation of a case in law, it is the duty of the parties in contention to disclose. Civil Procedure Rules. Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only – (a) the documents on which he relies; and (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case; and
(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. (Rule 31.10 makes provision for a disclosure statement) (Rule 31.12 provides for a party to apply for an order for specific inspection of documents)
Notice the disjuncts – and, or, - highlighted in red, that leaves a wide variety of interpretations. The function in Logic of the conjunction (and) disjunction, ( either or ), here is to provide a mandatory conjunction with an internal disjunctive set of alternatives, such that normally any one alone, fulfills the condition of truth, in the truth matrix table. Note; for the truth table to show a disjunctive set as false, EVERY disjunct has to be false. So correct comprehension, not variable interpretation, logically is to provide (a) AND either (b) (i) or (b) (ii) or (b) (iii). The normal choice will be (a) AND (b) (ii), with (b) (i) being willfully ignored. Failure to disclose adverse documents is the type of accidental wilfully cloaked oversight that frequently occurs, amounting to obstruction of justice. Oversights and omissions of duties of care, are torts many feel happy to abrogate, knowingly, and hoping not to be questioned about. Observing a person one dislikes, in impending danger without communicating an alert is such a tort of omissive speech or writing, that is culpable. A wilful omission IS as wilful and culpable as it's corresponding ACT that has the same outcome. Having evidence of someone's innocence and withholding it is likewise culpable. Non disclosure of these are at the heart of the most culpable of fallacies, that render a person's entire argument(s) flawed and invalid. Swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, while not telling the whole truth, using selective economy, is that part of fallacious argument that's essentially perjurous. It's a public body's duty of care to avoid particular prejudice towards individuals, inconsistent with their conduct towards all. Such a denial is a tort without argument of any validity, save mitigation.
|
||||
|
Asymmetry of information and noblesse oblige. The fallacy below is derived from want of integrity in the possessor of superior expertise in a specific discipline. Aside from professional relations where commerce is the basis of exchange; a party employs a lawyer, doctor or plumber. This fallacy arises from abrogation of noblesse oblige for the purpose of taking some iniquitous advantage of the other party. It is non compliance with,
Example: A policeman enters your property with a view to obtaining evidence without telling you your rights that he should have a warrant authorising the actions. A. ii. This is another complex area of balk-logic and abuse in asymmetry of information between comparative experts and their relative ignorance in cross disciplines. It has its analogy with a want of any form of Hippocratic Oath underpinning obligations and professional conduct for physicians, but it has its corollary that is applicable to any true professional in his own discipline. The essence of the tort lies in a want of noblesse oblige, or simply, honourable conduct between fellow members of the community. No matter what one's own expertise and discipline, unless it is the same as that of ones adversarial interlocutor, then that party has a tendency, strengthened by revenue, profit and advancement to abuse his / her knowledge and information where your own is in serious want, - in their discipline. Next time you are confronted with an expert in a field that is unfamiliar to you, IF the situation is adversarial, THEN study his speech acts, written acts, conduct, performance, deportment, look beneath the surface and estimate the reward or benefit being conferred to him at your expense. When you have these factors in mind, your observations will be coloured with relevant purpose, and the native hue of resolute mind, will be working with your percepts towards a reasoned conclusion as to the nature of the activity in hand. You will see what is usually hidden to the unobservant mind, not eyes. Seeing with the mind's eye; involves simultaneously processing the data percepts, - reasoning. When you ask for something, observe and remember how it is ignored, and reason why, since that something relates to a disclosure that may be to your benefit, and their detriment. Such an act is not merely simple negligence, but if, like myself you have asked several times, it immediately alters its classification and becomes wilful negligence. At this point you shall have estimated if you are being treated honourably or if there has been or will be some subtraction, - derogation. A simple example, since parking enforcement is a prominent theme for myself at present, it goes without thinking, that my local council issuing some 500,000 tickets annually, takes advantage of individual's ignorance with the use of their terminology, and wordings to persuade, by any means at their disposal, to get you to pay fast, end ensure efficiency of their collection procedures for the simple purpose of maximising profit, and increasing the number of warden's and cameras to achieve this spiraling result that is clearly at present out of control of reasonable people. In my own very few cases, I noticed this asymmetry and relied on the first principle of delay, by writing in all cases an immediate letter for mitigation on the issue of enforcement. This had a dual purpose of delaying the payment, while advancing my familiarity in the specif area of knowledge whose want, was being taken advantage of. Take the example of the ticket issued by Transport for London elsewhere on this site. At the time of committing the contravention, on a double red line for 2 minutes, I was unaware that 'warden's clothing' was as serious issue. The first innocent letter of representation was turned down as having not shown grounds, RATHER THAN having grounds they knew only too well, and the use of semantics in an area where the law is used STRICTLY observed. The interval gave me time to research the problem, and by the time the second letter was being drafted, I was more aware that the warden was NOT wearing his hat, or jacket, ( MANDATORY UNIFORM without which his functions is impermissible ), because I discussed it with my wife,who was standing at the kerb for some 6-10 minutes waiting for him to complete his task, thus he had not served the PCN on the vehicle screen or myself, having driven away, and all this was being observed by up to 6 wardens and supervisors. In a series of letters I had corrected the asymmetry of information and was by then, in a position to issue a claim in court for harassment, on invalid and unlawful procedures where there was a provable case showing the abuse of the asymmetry of information in the hope that my ignorance would not change. The parties in the back office at TfL had tried to enforce, along with all other witnesses, an invalid PCN, and I was now ready to have them ALL in court under cross examination with perjury in mind, as to the gangster style of enforcement that was being enacted in the name of the LAW! TfL backed down, but not without my warning them that a second instance of such conduct would be an immediate issue of proceedings with the present information of what had been attempted as a background.
|
||||
|
A statement or proposition delivered in a
Example: The Law says that 'and' can mean 'or' and 'or' can mean 'and'. WHO says? A. iii.
This should not be a fallacy, if the locutionary act is convincing, has a ring of truth about it, and if tested reveals the party averring has something more than the utterance to rely on. In many cases it is a fallacy if spoken in authoritative tones, and with an element of challenge, as if to say 'you'll have to take my word for it. Unless the averment is made in court under oath on an issue that can be empirically tried, then its use by manner, tone, dress and appearance, being part of an argument, without explanation is as useful as no utterance at all, and should be set aside as more like an expletive and redundant wordiness.
I have testimony provided by a solicitor, that she averred X, Y and Z, which were simply false, since I had contrary evidence to rely on. The primary test for this is if in doubt, or instinct indicates falsity, then treat it as false, until shown in the fullness of time otherwise, and then be prepared to apologise unreservedly.
It's as unfair to test a loved one in a manner of distrust, as it is to hide one's love by not declaring it. Lack of communication is the basis of most misunderstandings, and an abundance of communication very quickly builds to such a body of testimony, it becomes unassailable if the early doubts were not resolved. Once that has been done, then many years can ensue where trust is of such certainly one is prepared to lose all for it..
Here is an example; of averment with considerable conviction, from real life... I had posted a serious question on the inconsistency and contradiction between the Declaration of Rights 1668-9 and parts of the Road Traffic Act 1991 on a reputable law site forum. The contradiction is throughly explored on these pages, but I wanted to test the ability of any person who could reconcile the contradiction. Nobody could,simply because a contradiction is a tautology with truth values irrefragable for any space time or world of thinking entities. Several parties in the course of exchanges that became quite heated, made ridiculous assertions, contradicting themselves in the process, and showing serious want of ability for supposedly good lawyers, I quote.... exactly from the postings that moved from 300 views to 1100 in about 7 days.
|
||||
|
Quote "I am a lawyer and a good, but not infallible, one. I choose my words carefully."
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The law does indeed say that "and" can mean "or" and that "or" can mean "and". Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.You simply hypostasized a concept, so by your rule, the LAW now speaks does it? It's an animate thing capable of conversation, and as such gains authority? Like saying “Buckingham Palace said this morning........ X.” Is that an argument? The bricks spoke. This is Alice in wonderland material, that one is supposed to confront in awe. 2.Saying things without something to rely on requires the averment of a living or published authority of integrity, I just pointed out the fallacy of 'appeal to authority', you must have missed it. You show no source you rely on, it needs to be an unquestionable high authority with impeccable integrity, but you don't refer to anything other than the concept. The LAW doesn't fit that bill. It's like saying The university does indeed say "you can say what you like and mangle language as you wish", it gives you permission. I can't respond to comments of this type that seek to score points with flimsy material. At this juncture I leave the forum to its own, where an exchange of shibboleths appear to please, there is no personal gain in knowledge at this point. I may return if it takes an upward trend. NO prejudice intended. Further down, The effect of your argument if promulgated throughout the judiciary, will have contracts not worth their paper, since a promise now means not a promise, and when I said I will give money and forbearance in exchange, and default on the money, that will all be quite acceptable because I really meant money OR forbearance, and forbearance satisfies the truth table matrix, meaning that I can forgo the payment part, fascinating for contracts isn't it? take a simple contract under your new rule..... Where I owed a debt that could be settled by (capital) money 'and' interest, ( say £100 plus interest of £5 ), when it come to settlement date, I only have to say that 'AND' means 'OR', I can settle the debt with the mere £5 ONLY. How convenient! Contracts will be in tatters, promise breaching a part of every day life, not much of it now anyway, and words reduced to mean whatever I fancy at that moment. I said it's Alice in Wonderland stuff,and remain unconvinced by the authority you rely on, indeed it is not an authority the URL suggests it is more like an opinion LO morals which appears quite appropriate. I uppercased the special words. Tony A more substantial extract of this exchange is below at Annex 1. |
||||
|
A suspicion or doubt may be treated in a variety of ways, where there is no empirical test. If over matters of love, the best way is to open the discussion directly with purpose to resolve the doubt to absolute satisfaction, since jealousy can sorely cloud judgment, as; when, Othello: first thinks rightly; No, Iago, I'll see before I doubt; when I doubt, prove; And on the proof, but then casts that good practice aside, since he never actually sees, he has mere circumstantial evidence and a persuading back-stabber. Why, why is this? Think'st thou lid make a life of jealousy, To follow still the changes of the moon With fresh suspicions? No! To be once in doubt Is once to be resolved. Here the argument again is good, but he never challenges Desdemona, believing the scoundrel Iago. A crazed jealousy! Whereas the cool Iago thinks likewise, treating doubt as certain falsity. I know not if't be true, But I for mere suspicion in that kind Will do as if for surety.
The essence of knowing the truthfulness of a person's speech acts is either discovered in the first few moment by instinct and experience, or else found in lengthy acquaintanceship where communication is wanting by some ingredient. Unless there is a situation like those examples above, it is left to observe and question averments, by looking at all the other factors of behaviour, eyes, immediacy of response or if by correspondence, like above, then the structure, logic and consequences that flow from the written forms will be usually far more than sufficient for a determination.
|
||||
|
Binding and Unbinding the Disjunct and Conjunct.
Whistle Blower, Ghost bailiff visits,The same with the councils, WHY EVER NOT they employed the Bailiffs. Who's teaching who. Schedule 6 RTA 1991, An Aladdin's lamp, sorry clamp of opportunism. Just rub it, and money comes out.
It,s so much faster and worth more money to jump straight to NTO and then over the hurdle to CC, the money is bigger, the intimidation greater, and the results – more money faster. Back room laughter! Printing charge certificates and ghosting appeals is the next step to watch for!
An authority has a duty to consider the representation AND either reject it or accept it serving that on the motorist. The conjunct and is binding, the councils make it a DISJUNCT, AND means Or, I have seen this before and argued it elsewhere against someone who said in the law And means Or. I said:
To show explanation as to why one is not permitted to unbind a conjunct, consider; I contract to a debt of £5000, and interest at the rate amounting to £500 extra. To choose to settle that debt in the disjunctive form, is to say, look, the 'and' means 'or' which means I can settle this debt with either the £5000 or the £500, I choose the latter, what's the matter? Surely that's ok,you made the rule.. The council's conduct UNBOUND the conjunct unequivocally, inequitably – want of justice - and without doubt. Throw them out. So much time saving to consider it and raise the NTO immediately or when they're easy meat, just go straight to CC.
Playing games with the conjunct and disjunct.
Unbinding the conjunct. And means OR, where's there's the flaw?
To show explanation as to why one is not permitted to unbind a conjunct, consider; I contract to a debt of £5000, and interest at the rate amounting to £500 extra. To choose to settle that debt in the disjunctive form, is to say, look, the 'and' means 'or' which means I can settle this debt with either the £5000 or the £500, I choose the latter, what's the matter? Surely that's ok, you made the rule.
Daft Draft in statutes, using divergent thinking to allow the conjunct to fly loose without convergent thinking to enforce exemptions with penalties for it.
The treasonable reasonable approach.
The council's conduct UNBINDS the conjunct in schedule 6 of the Road traffic Act 1991, where it says;
(7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph— (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and (b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.
What do they do!, Well of course they consider them, many only for a second or two, some even get considered when they are asleep, awake driving, or eating lunch.
“to serve on that person notice,” Oh forget that, the postal service either loses it, or the recipient doesn't bother to respond, they're in the wrong anyway, offer them ways to pay!
It shall be the duty. Ah that's a duty, who on earth does their duty these days, it doesn't say MUST. It must say MUST for us to do it,
DUTY OED. 1. a. The action and conduct due to a superior; homage, submission; due respect, reverence; an expression of submission, deference, or respect.
Nothing too imposing in that now.
They just gave us a new title, were now Local Authorities, not councils, so deference, submission and respect is to be shown TO US!
4. Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the London authority concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above ("the notice of rejection") must— (a) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph.....
Oh why all the fuss? Such a lengthy procedure, so much time to waste, 28 days for an appeal, and 28 days for payment, the whole thing is just too expensive to manage IF we have an overriding objective to maximise the profit. Only two percent challenge anyway, far too much fuss. Serve the charge certificate, word it nicely.
A kind word and a blow is far better than just a kind word you know! For whom? What do you mean? For them of course, but let it seem for us. Whatever you do, turn it to the adverse, obverse.
You know, hence we shall see how power change purpose what our seemers be.
Make out it's their delinquency or the post office, we are NEVER wrong you know that. Be absolute in that, and equivocal in the explanation.
They did so unequivocally, inequitably – want of justice - and without doubt. Throw them out.
See the truth table for this behaviour, and its part in contextual inferencing that's flawed and easily exposed. Only ONE unbound conjunct in a series of conjuncts renders the truth of a proposition false.
|
||||
|
This fallacy is a fascinating one. It is used widely not only WITHOUT integrity, but with a considerable degree in want of self consciousness, and typically without familiarity of the transparency in constructions. That's why the truth is SO, SO much simpler. Clever use can easily deliver a false suggestion, a focussed listener with a reasonable vocabulary will perceive the deception a mile off. When a person has resolved to deceive or tell a direct lie, inherent in the deception is a powerful need for consistency, and in order to maintain that, it is important to deliver the words or sentences as close to the truth as possible. Hence the choice of words, will reveal the mens mentis invariably as having potential for a SENSE in the mind of the speaker, that is NOT the intended sense that is manifestly cloaked. It's utterly disgraceful and really belongs to people who lack moral courage, where there is no accountability, and reprehensible where there is, since it can proceed with collusion of the examiner, interrogator, examiner in chief, or particularly a cross examiner in want of sagacity or else conspirator. If the questioner, asks like an examiner in chief, even subtly allowing affirmations, then he is giving the respondent a clear path for deception. The only serious way to undermine is to ask with the appropriate negative, using NOT or do you deny? Or else having shown a contrariety or contradiction, ask how the party reconciles it, and observe the lividity of face. Let's begin with this simple statement during the recent police investigation on terror alert at London airport, August 2006. A party who was arrested said “ I have nothing to do with the alleged plot” Do you see HOW this can mean “I have everything to do with the actual plot. It was unquestioningly stated by the TV reporter without the slightest notion that the choice of words potentially leaves a vast area of truth and of course guilt undetermined. Using twice the quote taken from Latin sayings item 9 below, 1 as written, and 2 as understood by me. 1. “I went to court on the basis that I never received a parking ticket. (After my car was dragged away like a piece of junk worth around £1200). I studied the law on this and was very up-to-date with all the regular laws. Also no warrant was ever produced.“ Now read it again with my emphasis. 2. “I went to court on the basis that I never received a parking ticket. (After my car was dragged away like a piece of junk worth around £1200). I studied the law on this and was very up-to-date with all the regular laws. Also no warrant was ever produced.“ It's easy to see the tendency of the speaker to convey - 1, he never received a parking ticket, and 2, no warrant existed, but the bold italics blue words show the equivocation, don't they? In - 1, he relied on the basis, not the fact, and in - 2. he relies on it's non production rather than its non-existence. Thus he may have received the parking ticket, and the warrant may, most probably did, exist. Had I asserted such propositions, and wanted to ensure for the avoidance of any doubt, the non existence of both items, I should have chosen different constructions, like; I swore an affidavit that “I had not received a parking ticket”, I regret you shall have to take my word for it, since I can't prove non receipt unless it was posted to be signed for,and the burden of proof becomes that of the sender to show a signature, and although I cannot know for any certainty, I believe no warrant existed at any time, simply because when I requested a copy of the warrant be brought to court, twice in writing, here are the letters, the bailiff omitted to do so, and the truth of his assertion fails with nothing to rely on. If one has reached the requisite level of awareness as to how transparent these assertions are, one would not waste the time in attempting to equivocate. If the matter is merely non retributive, it's so much easier to aplogise and move on, learning from the mistake. Stature in my view is heightened for clear accountability and explanation, while the alternative; so poorly cloaked, is deplorably obvious it leaves one with real disdain for the person of stature having fallen from grace and showing the real indignity and baseness of character. Once you begin to think of sentences propositionally, you will see the immediate impact its meaning can have on the truth conditions in a matrix for accurate propositional veracity. Again, that is the reason a question with inherent negation eliminates a truth condition far more quickly, where a question requiring affirmation leaves the entire set of possible truthful alternatives undetermined.
|
||||
|
This and the next section is a whole cluster of the clearest in amusing gaffes. The best way to show these fallacious semantics, is by anecdotal relay of real life situations. Here is a heated exchange in a Legal forum on my own thread. |
||||
|
Cogito... Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:44 pm Quote: The reason why I have not contributed to this thread in a "constructive" manner is because the whole thread is a waste of time, COMPARE THAT WITH.
Cogito... Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:31 pm Quote: I'm not telling anyone that the thread is a waste of time.
Tony God give me strength! We have another self contradicter here, who can't think what he last said and thus PROMPTLY contradicts himself. It's self exposure all the time isn't it. Pants down, contradictions, boredom, sniping, bananas, and wisdom, sorry I haven't seen that last bit yet.. This person didn't need any assistance w | ||||
