Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (66 min 23 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________
Session 7 tonight on Logic, Argument and Rhetoric is the last of the foundation sessions in this series on the Law Explained. This means that starting next week, we begin to speak on a topic by topic basis concerning real, immediate, relevant and pressing matters that many people may be facing regarding law, the courts, demands for money, their finances and other pressures by the present system. So I am excited about this next phase on this series.
I know for many of you that started this journey on the series of the Law Explained some eight weeks ago, it has been a lot to get through. Yet, I assure you, the previous 7 weeks have been absolutely necessary to know before we get to deliver real solutions to practical problems, because without such foundation, it would be like giving you a torch/flashlight in a cave without any batteries.
When we spoke in the prologue of the 144 articles of truth of law, this blog as the very first part of this series on the Law Explained is so critically important, it really continues to be the summary of everything we continue to speak and write about as to what is law? What is true justice? And what is fair process? It is easy to get lost in the myriad of terms and complexities of law and finance. Yet, if you just listen to this one blog and really read and then re-read those 144 articles of truth of law, I assure you it is the most important 144 sentences you will ever read concerning the law and you.
So then over the past few weeks we have gone through six more sessions: the first session (Session 1) being an introduction on the fundamentals; then Session 2 being about Trusts and Rights; then the third session (Session 3) being about Estates, Rolls and Registers; then the fourth session (Session 4) being about Corporations, Funds and Property; then the fifth session (Session 5) being about Documents and Securities; and then the sixth session last week being about Money, Capital and Markets. Everything we are now going to speak about in the coming weeks in terms of affidavits, or legal processes, or summonses and demands, or unlawful arrests, or mortgages and foreclosures, or credit card or other debts is all built upon this foundation – a distillation of decades of research and many tens of thousands of hours of painstaking reading and checking, not to mention the thousands of pages of canons of law you can go and reference via the website One-Heaven.Org for more information.
What an incredible resource then, to no longer have any doubt as to what it is we face; and how such a system has managed to survive for so long; and why we may not have previously succeeded; and why we hopefully won’t continue making the same mistakes. What an exciting time, under the idea of a “General Amnesty” when we can quell our collective egos and finally focus on the real issue, being the restoration of the Golden Rule of Law, that all are equal under the same laws in the proper administration of true justice and fair process. To finally name a thing for what it is.
I say “enough is enough” in the practice of so many preying upon the fears and desperation and weaknesses of those who find themselves in trouble, to be given such hollow promises, and fake remedies and false information. I say to anyone with a shred of decency and conscience within the truth movement and beyond, that everyone – absolutely everyone deserves the chance to know what the law is and what the law is not; and no one has the right to continue to deceive others, whether they be paid disinformation agents or simply bottom dwelling scammers, who think it is an easy way to make money.
To all of you then, who have the good sense and courage and willingness to read and listen to this series on the Law Explained, I say once again – thank you! Thank you for respecting such valuable knowledge and continuing to become more competent. To those of you who have accepted in good trust and character the principle of “General Amnesty” as this series unfolds, whilst waiting to see how the actual templates and example remedies will be developed, I also say thank you! The truth is that people learn best and can be best helped when they can turn to those they can trust – people willing and capable of being true “advocates” of the Golden Rule of Law. So I trust that as this series has unfolded, your own trust in this information has not been unfounded, as you see how so much knowledge and time and research has now been distilled into these sessions so far.
If you are new to this series, then welcome and thank you for taking the time to read and listen. Yet before you go too far on this particular session on logic, arguments and rhetoric, please read the prologue and the first six sessions (session 1, session 2, session 3, session 4, session 5 and session 6) first.
For those of you already up to date on this series, let us start then with a quick summary of what we have learned from Session 6 and some further key concepts that underpin our ability to recognize Logic, Arguments and Rhetoric as Part #1 of tonight being a “Quick Review on Key Concepts”.
Part #1 – A Quick Review on Key Concepts
Page 3 – Review of Key Points from Session 6
Slide 3 of the pack of slides for tonight provides a summary of the key insights from Session 6 last week on Money, Capital and Markets, namely:
The Ucadia Financial System is the only viable solution for Money, Credit and Capital;
Capital is simply the right to call upon the Credit of another in Trust for some benefit;
When a community trusts one another and are willing to extend credit there is unlimited capital;
When a community is divided and fearful, it must “import” a substitute forms of capital from another party;
The Business Model of Banks is to destroy community trust and capital to sell their artificial substitute called “security”;
A market is a trusted space (virtual or real) where buyers and sellers may exchange goods or services;
A space (virtual or real) where certain buyers and sellers have an unfair advantage or gain is not a market;
Money is a standard unit of measure; a means of exchange and a trusted redeemable unit of value;
Money that fulfils its purpose may be public, private, credit, personal and ecclesiastical;
The most valuable monetary unit in civilized history is the Supreme Credo (Credit) of One Heaven;
The greatest threat to humanity is the present global financial system. [Planet Earth]The planet has never faced a starker choice;
The Ucadia Financial System is a complete and “ready to go” - capable of being operational within 120 days.
Page 4 – What is Truth?
Session 6 last week on Money, Capital and Markets was pretty heavy in information – albeit in summary and slide form. However, every single session we have discussed to date, including session 6 is absolutely vital – especially in comprehending the foundation of what is going on before we begin on a week by week basis of specific solutions to specific issues that many of you are facing.
Yet, there was one word that returned in a different form being the cornerstone of a fair and prosperous community, or market or system of money and capital – being the notion of Trust. Not only is the notion of the restoring of Trust through the Golden Rule of Law, that everyone is equal before the same laws and none are higher, we now see that restoring Trust is also vital for a prosperous and vibrant economic life of the community.
This brings me to slide 4 tonight and the very question of “What is Truth?” As the slide shows, the notion of truth is essentially by definition a steadfastness and conviction that something is as it is claimed to be; and so depending upon the apparent trustworthiness and level of conviction of the one claiming something to be true, we may or may not assume a similar level of trust.
That is why so many of these fake truth gurus get away with so much, because they sound convincing, they sound credible and they appeal to a certain demographic by throwing in all kinds of cliché’s. In the end, people “believe” because they want to “believe”, not because it is logical or common sense. Take for instance the diagram of the four-walled prison I have published several times during this series on the Law Explained. The answer to some of these fake teachers and fake experts now that the Law is being properly explained, is to repudiate that there is any possible notion of the Golden Rule of Law presently in existence; and simply make it about personal choice and personal perspective. They steadfastly refuse to address the fact that they are still playing within the matrix and in many cases causing far more harm than good.
Page 5- What is Fact?
This brings us then to slide 5 and the notion of “What is Fact?” Here, I show the purple/pink image of the fictional Res or Thing person and various documents allegedly connected to it. The notion of fact is by definition a testimony of claimed evidentiary proof of some past event, often in written form; and so depending upon the source and authority of such testimony, it may or may not be trusted to be true.
Here again, the notion of trust is essential into accepting what is or is not fact. If the source cannot be trusted, then no matter how accurate the information, it will not be accepted as fact – hence the story of the “Boy who cried wolf”. In contrast, those that have developed trustworthy personalities, even though there is nothing remotely honorable about them, appear to be able to say some of the most appalling lies, yet people “believe” them to be true. This is in essence the modern business model of mainstream media and the propaganda of corporate and government advertisers.
Page 6- What is Reality?
Slide 6 then summarizes the notion of Reality. As we said at the start of this entire series on the Law Explained, many apologists for the existing system want us to “believe” that Reality is something fixed and impermanent, with such a notion being absurd and deliberately false, given the components of truth and fact that make reality.
The notion of reality is by definition the combination of both the ideas of truth and fact to assert a thing or notion or claim is factually true and therefore may be trusted as genuine, without doubt. The problem with the modern concept of reality is that if you take the time to look it up in the dictionary, you will find one of the most deliberately circular and absurd notions in all western thinking whereby reality is defined as truth and fact and then truth and fact are defined as real. This is called a logical fallacy and any argument based upon it cannot stand in law.
Page 7 – What is Validity?
So how does anything get decided then, if such notions of truth, or fact or reality are in essence “relative”? The answer is the notion of validity and how competing arguments are decided.
Slide 7 shows the notion of valid then is by definition a claim may be strongly asserted against any counter arguments and thus in such a show of force and conviction, the stronger of the two may be trusted.
Now, please don’t mistake the idea of Validity as somehow equivalent to the idea of Greek Philosophers standing at the Agora debating the merits of Law. I am speaking of the theatre and the entertainment show that is Pirate Law of the Western-Roman Pirate System for several hundred years.
In the first instance, a dispute of claim or fact was resolved by the ancient notion of trial by combat. For example, in the mixed up British system of fake law, this idea continued even up to the last one-hundred years in the form of the duel.
For the rest of the masses, the concept of trial by combat evolved to the medieval notion of Trial by Entertainment, usually within the Old Taverns or Inns of Court. By the way, the four Inns of Court are a continuation of this system of trial in front of a crowd, usually drunk or stoned on drugs, who then voted by cheering or booing the side they liked or disliked.
Capital trials for poor peasants and travelers without sufficient funds or standing were held in these taverns and inns from the time of Henry VIII onward until the 18th Century. People would become progressively more and more drunk and then the night’s entertainment was seeing some poor peasant try to defend themselves against often dubious charges. If the patrons were lucky, they could then witness the hanging, sometimes on a hanging tree out the front of the tavern, or in other times in the stairwell of the tavern. That is the reality of Common Law and Common Law Justice.
Finally, validity shifted to the modern notion of Trial by Inquisition or Trial by Mental Torture, where the accused is subject to maximum and unreasonable stress to either extract a confession or proof the truth of their alibi and innocence. Under the Fourth Reich of the Wall Street Banks, this model is being replaced as a time wasting and now people are moved straight from accusation, to sentence and imprisonment, without even the right of trial in more and more jurisdictions.
Page 8 – The Tripartite Relations of Life
So that is truth, fact, reality and validity in the present world. Before we start by defining the notion of argument and then logic, I’d like to quickly go through some slides we have discussed previously on logic and common sense, so we keep these things in mind as we move forward.
On Slide 8, I list again the idea of the Tripartite Relations of Life and the model that an Action follows a Cause and a Cause follows a Reason. This is important, very important; as any system of law, no matter how corrupt, cannot ignore this basic element of logic and common sense – you cannot have an action without a cause; and you cannot have a cause without a reason.
Page 9 – The Law is necessarily fictional
Slide 9 reminds us again that the Law is necessarily fictional – because the law must concern itself in seeking to re-create past events in order to judge and discern fact, truth and the reality and merit of the accusations.
Again, I implore you to take the time to reflect on these slides, as when we move into specific issues and solutions, knowledge of such fundamental common sense and logic is essential.
Page 10 – What the law is not
Slide 10 then reminds us what the law is not. A rule that is secret cannot be a law; and A rule that is unclear in meaning cannot be a law; and A rule that cannot be applied cannot be a law; and Where there is no justice, there is no law; and Where there is no honor of Rule of Law, there is no law.
By the way, if you hear anyone argue that if there is no contract, there is no law, please tell them to go and read this series on The Law Explained and become competent in law, before sprouting such nonsense. The modern judicial system doesn’t need an actual contract to move forward. Why do you think I have been trying to explain this to you? They can make it up as they go along and once you are in one of their courts, then they can make a contract, whether you like it or not. Arguments about contracts are a complete distraction and noise, designed to stop people becoming competent in Law and to stop people from read and listening to such knowledge as this series on the Law Explained.
Page 11- What is Not Justice?
Slide 11 reminds us again that No Justice exists where there is No Rule of Law and where claimed Officers do not have Clean Hands, Good Trust and Impartiality.
Page 12- No Trust can exist under Injustice
Slide 12 then reminds us that No trust can exist under Injustice where the claimed Trustees do not have clean hands, good trust and impartiality.
Page 13- The Rule of Relation
Slide 13 is the Rule of Relation again that a company is formed from an estate and an estate is formed from some underlying trust. A company formed from an estate cannot have more power than the estate that created it and the trust that created the estate. The other point about this is the fact that if the trust cannot hold, then the estate cannot hold. If the estate does not hold, then the company does not hold.
Page 14 –The Rule of Sequence
Slide 14 is the Rule of Sequence again both in logic and law whereby True law forbids a crime to be alleged for an action that occurred before the law was written.
Page 15 –Law Reason and Action
Slide 15 is a reminder back to the connection between Law, Reason and Action that A valid Law is always applied to an alleged Action and its Reason. For valid Law to be applied, the Reason and Action needs to be recreated and established and both mens rea [“guilty mind”] and actus reus [“guilty act”] proven.
Page 16 –What is an Action in Law?
Finally, Slide 16 is a reminder that a valid Action formed through Due Process of three elements being Testimony of the Cause, Request and Form. Despite the fact that the system has morphed itself and even ignores certain elements, the order of action still remains valid; and no action can properly commence without first a testimony, then second a request or instruction and finally the form of action.
Part #2 - Argument and Rhetoric
Page 18 – What is Argument and Rhetoric?
It is now time to address in part 2 of the session tonight, beginning with slide 18 the question of “What is an Argument?” Before we look at this slide in more detail, you may initially feel you have a good idea of what the concept of Argument means, given most of us by the time we are adults have engaged in at least several engagements that we felt were forms of argument.
If we look at a standard dictionary, we will most likely see a long list of various meanings attached to the word argument, given it plays such a fundamental and central role within the existing system.
For example, in general use, an argument is variously defined as “a fact or statement used to support a proposition or reason” as well as “a verbal dispute or quarrel”. Argument is also defined as a “process of reasoning”, particularly in the use of tools of reason in law such as Logic. Argument is also associated with mathematics, programming, grammar and astronomy.
The word argument itself, comes from the Latin term arguo meaning “I show, prove, assert, declare, make clear; or I reprove, accuse, charge with; or I blame, censure; or I denounce as false”. In other words, the ancient Latin concept of argument remains very similar to its use today. Rhetoric is the oratory skill of such argument. That's it.
While we may take the notion of argument for granted, it is possible to step back for a moment and identify some key component parts to all forms of argument, by inference of its meaning and function. Here on slide 18, I try to make it as clear as possible.
Argument is in essence the Process of establishing and validating the proof of one or more claimed facts. The notion of argument is by definition the same as that for reality through the combination of both the ideas of truth and fact to assert a thing or notion or claim is factually true; and therefore may be trusted as genuine, without doubt.
All formal Arguments have three essential components: Matter, Issue and Facts. The foundational reasoning used to establish Argument is LOGIC either by Deductive or Inductive Logic. An Argument always involves a minimum of 2 persons. A Legal Argument always involves a minimum of 3 persons.
Page 19 – What is the Matter of an Argument?
Let us go through this in more detail, beginning with the notion of Matter. Slide 19 reveals that the Matter is merely the superficial Topic, or Context, or Classification, or Name in relation to the Argument and NOT its Substance.
Before any issue is described or alleged facts are asserted, an Argument has material existence by mere mention, providing its context in relation to topic, classification and name can be clearly identified.
Thus the first test of Argument is that it can be defined in context and relation, before the Thing or Notion or Claim that if proven (by the facts) has/had material existence (reality). When an argument in law then is alleged, the three Unities (time, place and action) are essential to prove a Matter exists.
Page 20 – What is the Issue of the Argument?
Slide 20 gives us the contrast with the notion of Issue. The Issue is the Presumed or Alleged Thing or Notion or Claim that if proven has/had material existence (reality).
The Issue is more than the facts, or the premise or even the conclusion; it is the thing or notion or claim, that if proven is then said to have material existence as the “Res” or subject of the Matter.
While a Matter exists, merely on proving general existence, an Issue needs to be proven by Deductive Argument or Inductive Argument.
Deductive: The TRUTH of the Conclusion is a logical consequence of the Premises
Inductive: The Premises are proven FACT therefore the Conclusion is most probably TRUE.
Page 21 – Who are the Parties to an Agreement?
The next item I want to highlight before we discuss the nature of Logic is on slide 21 and the point of who are the parties to an argument?
In a personal argument, the minimum parties are two being the Accuser and the one Accused. Of course a Personal Argument can become a Legal Argument and many documents sent by various companies are designed to establish that procedure. However, until sufficient evidence exists to move forward to a legal argument, the minimum number of parties to a personal Argument is two.
As for a Legal Argument, the minimum number of parties is three, being the Accused, the Accuser and the Witness. The reason there needs to be three separate persons in a Legal Argument is that for any conclusion of an Argument such as an order or arrest or other action to be lawful, it must be from a valid Tribunal of Law, or in other words a body of three separate persons capable of being able to determine the truth of the matter.
The most perfect law tribunal itself is the notion of the Court of Conscience and the Tribunal of Penance where the penitent is the Accuser (self accuser), the one Accused and the Witness before Heaven for their transgressions. This is also called a non-Contentious Legal Argument Whereas, when an accused fights the accusation, this is called a Contentious Argument.
Now the other point to make clear at this revelation is the fact that a Tribunal of Penance only occurs under the proper dispensation of the sacrament of Penance in accord with ecclesiastical law, primarily Canon Law and the church of England. The sacrament and procedure requires three essential elements (1) the accused must be genuinely in remorse, or sorrowful for such an accusation; and(2) the accused must be willing to confess their part in possibly causing the controversy to arise; and (3) the accused promises to satisfy any debts incurred by their sins.
At no point does the sacrament of Penance require a penitent to admit to false accusations or confess to transgressions that are not of their making – merely that a man or woman, competent in themselves; and knowledgeable of the essentials as we have discussed in their blogs and series is then willing to stand and defend the Golden Rule of Law and make sure they are not party to injuring it.
It is why soon – very soon, members of Ucadia will be able to record the session and sitting of Tribunals of Penance and Courts of Conscience and have such recordings and Gazette Notices available to respond to various courts to ensure such courts making such accusations are proper ecclesiastical forums having the power and authority to issue such claims?
As this is part of practical remedies in the weeks ahead, I will not say anymore now, except to warn everyone to be careful in assuming that any of this has anything to do with avoiding the consequences of your actions – the complete opposite. Redemption and Remedy only arises from self-responsibility and learning and taking account of your actions.
Page 22 – If no basic agreement, an Argument stalls
Finally, on slide 22 I outline the fact that If parties cannot agree on classification of Matter and Issue, then the Argument stalls. For example, if the parties cannot agree on the Matter and essential Issue at hand, then such an Argument cannot proceed unless some other mitigating circumstance exists.
Thus, for example if Party A claims a copyright injury and Party B claims a trespass and breach of contract (terms of use) issue against Party A, then there is no agreement as to whether the Matter is a matter of copyright or trespass or breach of contract.
However, most people unwittingly agree to Matter and Issue before ever going to Court. A Summons is also a type of Letter of Demand. If unchallenged, then on appearance, is acceptance of existence of debt.
Part #3 – Logic
Page 24 – What is Logic?
So now we have a better comprehension hopefully of the idea of Argument, it is now time to discuss the notion of Logic and what is Logic?
Have a look at slide 24. Logic is about using the principles of Inference and Reason whereby Propositions that are properly expressed may be used to deduce consistent Conclusions across a wide variety of Subjects.
By one measure, Logic may be defined as Bivalent or Multivalent. Bivalent Logic is based on the presumption of only one of two possible outcomes or conclusions; and Multivalent Logic is based on the presumption or two or more relative possible outcomes or conclusions; and
By another measure, Logic may be defined as Linear or Multilinear. Linear Logic is chronologically based on the presumption of a set of singular space-time dependent events commencing with A and then proceeding to B; and Multilinear Logic is based on a progressively expanding set of interdependent space-time events; and
Page 25 – Bivalent Logic
As slide 25 shows, Bivalent Linear Logic is based on three (3) Laws of Reason being Identity, Non-Contradiction and Bivalency being: (a) The Law of Identity states than an object is the same as its identity; and (b) The Law of Non-Contradiction or the "exclusion of paradox" states that a valid proposition cannot state something that is and that is not in the same respect and at the same time; and (c) The Law of Bivalency (Excluded Middle) states that conclusions will resolve themselves to one (1) of two (2) states being valid or invalid.
However, only Multivalent Multilinear Logic is capable to approximating to any degree of accuracy the reality of the Universe. Both Multivalent Linear Logic and Bivalent Linear Logic are wholly artificial and unable to accurately portray the reason, function and effect of any real scientific events with any degree of accuracy; and
While Bivalent Linear Logic is the most unnatural and artificial system for portraying, recreating or analyzing the reason, cause and effect of any real world events, it is the most functional of all three (3) logic models in terms of models of law and reason because of its simplicity. However, as Bivalent Linear Logic is wholly absurd and unnatural to the multivalent paradoxical reality of life, all men and women must be granted the right of free will and consent to be adjudicated according to Bivalent Linear Logic.
In contrast, a Falsity of Fallacy in Logic or Argument is an incorrect reasoning resulting in a misconception or erroneous Premise(s) or Conclusion or both that are Incoherent, Fallacious, Irrelevant, Malicious, Perfidious, Unproven, Unasserted, Circular, Verbose, Absurd, Repetitive or Defamatory.
Page 26 – Logical Fallacy: Incoherence
Slide 26 shows the first classic example of Logical Fallacy being Incoherence. An Incoherent or Incohaerens argument, being Latin for “it is not consistent” is any argument whereby its Premises do not follow one another. Thus, an incohaerens is when no Conclusion could reasonably be deduced or inferred from two or more inconsistent and possibly contradictory premises.
Also called the “Kitchen Sink” fallacy, Incoherence is one of the simplest ways of defeating almost 100% of “cut and paste” internet remedies. This is why you cannot ever create “grand documents” based on everything including “the kitchen sink”.
Page 27 – Logical Fallacy: Non-Sequitur
Slide 27 shows the logical fallacy of Non-Sequitur. A Non sequitur argument, being Latin for “it does not follow” is any argument whereby its Conclusion does not follow from its Premises. Thus, a non sequitur is when a Conclusion could be either true or false, yet the argument is false as there is no reasonable way of arriving to such a Conclusion from the premises alone by way of deduction or inference.
Non sequitur fallacies are frequently the “bread and butter” of propaganda, main stream media and bullies. Being charged before the allegation is proven is in one sense a Non Sequitur.
Page 28 – Logical Fallacy: Irrelevance
Slide 28 shows the logical fallacy of Irrelevance. An Irrelevance or Ignoratio elenchi, being Latin for “irrelevant conclusion” is any argument whereby its Conclusion may in itself be valid, but does not address the primary deduction or inference (as issue in question) related to the Premises.
Page 29 – Logical Fallacy: Malice
Slide 29 shows the logical fallacy of Malice. Malice or Malignare, being Latin for “a malicious act” is any deliberately and willfully negative, spiteful, wicked and evil act designed and intended to harm another, whether or not the other party was aware of such behaviour; and
Page 30 – Logical Fallacy: Perfidy
Slide 30 shows the logical fallacy of Perfidy. Perfidy or Perfidum, being Latin for “a deliberately false, dishonest, treacherous act; a breach of trust” is any deliberately and willfully false, dishonest, deceptive, treacherous act, representing a clear and unmistakable breach of trust, whether or not such action was intended for profit; and whether or not the other party was aware of such behaviour; and
Page 31 – Logical Fallacy: Unproven Claim
Slide31 shows the logical fallacy of Unproven Claim. An Unproven Claim or Onus Probandi, from Latin maxim Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat meaning “the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim)” is any argument whereby the burden of proof fails to be provided or is falsely placed upon the one accused or defending the claim and not the one making the claim. Thus, any system of law based on the assumption of being culpable on mere accusation without burden of proof is not only absurd, but false, immoral and unlawful; and
Page 32 – Logical Fallacy: Unasserted Claim
Slide 32 shows the logical fallacy of Unasserted Claim. An Unasserted Claim or Argumentum ex silentio, from Latin meaning “argument (deduced) out of silence” is any argument whereby a Conclusion is made on the absence of evidence or argument, rather than the existence or merit of argument; and
Page 33 – Logical Fallacy: Circular Reasoning
Slide33 shows the logical fallacy of Circular Reasoning. A Circular reasoning or Circulus in demonstrando, from Latin meaning “circular argument” is any argument where the Conclusion ultimately relies upon the Premises to be true, yet the Premises ultimately depends upon the Conclusion to be true and thus self referencing and circular; and
Page 34 – Logical Fallacy: Verbose Reasoning
Slide 34 shows the logical fallacy of Verbose Reasoning. A Verbose reasoning or Argumentum Verbosum, from Latin meaning “verbal intimidation” is any argument where the Premises or Conclusion are deliberately verbose, or obtuse, or confusing, or overly technical, or complex, or occult in order to intimidate and deflect attention from the existence of one or more fallacies contained within the argument in general; and
Page 35 – Logical Fallacy: Absurd Reasoning
Slide 35 shows the logical fallacy of Absurd Reasoning. An Absurd reasoning or Argumentum as Absurdum, from Latin meaning “an absurd argument” is any argument where the Conclusion of an argument is set aside and one or more of the Premises of an argument are proven to be false by showing that a false, untenable or absurd result would follow its acceptance. Argumentum as Absurdum is frequently and mistakenly associated with an absurd logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum or “reduction to absurdity” whereby an entire argument is falsely deemed absurd upon discovery of but one absurd or untenable premise.
Page 36 – Logical Fallacy: Repetitious Reasoning
Slide 36 shows the logical fallacy of Repetitious Reasoning. Repetitious reasoning or Argumentum ad Infinitum, from Latin meaning “endless argument” is any argument where the argument is continually presented, often with intentional intimidation to use such repetition and ignorance of any counter argument in order to deflect attention from the existence of one or more fallacies contained within the original argument in general; and
Page 37 – Logical Fallacy: Scandalous Reasoning
Slide 36 shows the logical fallacy of Scandalous Reasoning. Inflammatory or Scandalous Reasoning may be based on sound evidence. However, within a court setting and many elements of the existing commercial system, the mere mention of such scandalous knowledge is grounds to have a matter struck out or more serious action taken.
Therefore Scandal cannot ever be considered a valid defense nor a “bargaining chip”, as such behaviour is much more likely to result in punitive and personal punishment by members of the organization threatened. Scandal must be exposed on its own merits, not as a personal weapon in legal matters.
Page 38 – Logical Fallacy: Defamatory Reasoning
Slide 38 shows the logical fallacy of Defamatory Reasoning. Defamatory Reasoning accusations or Argumentum ad Hominem, from Latin meaning “against the man” or “to the person” is any argument whereby attention is sought to be deflected from on one or more fallacies contained within the original argument by introducing a secondary argument against the character of the one highlighting such fallacies.
The only viable solution for Arguments, Logic and Rhetoric is Ucadia
So there is the summary of Session 7. A detailed analysis and explanation in relation to Arguments and Logic. As with the previous sessions, I hope you find session 7 to be both useful and interesting.
To all who have found it in their hearts to contribute and support and donate to Ucadia to help this huge amount of work in laying out the solid foundation for the services and solutions we are about to make available, I say thank you. Without your help this would not have been possible.
I am now most excited to start the next phase from next week on the issue by issue solutions available to everyone who is prepared to take self-responsibility over their lives and restore the rule of law.
Until we speak next week, please be safe, be well, thank you and good night.
No comments:
Post a Comment