Denying the Antecedent _ a statement where the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise and draws a conclusion that doesn’t support it.
If my car breaks down, I’ll be late for work. My car won’t break down. Therefore, I won’t be late for work.
This is fallacious because there are many reasons for being late to work. While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise.
John’s extended boralogue ties the discordant economic arguments emanating from Washington with the reality of onrushing monetary crises. This includes excerpts from John’s address at the Steeling the Mind Conference in Denver last weekend.
Since the onrushing crisis involves a demise of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, we’re tracking the issue of an emerging global currency. Is there a chance carbon might back such a currency instead of gold? Dr. Michael Coffman, Ph.D., (www.rescuingamericabook.com) discusses such a possibility.
“A man who is about to speak the truth should do so with one foot in the stirrup,” advises an old Chinese proverb. As our country slides into critical times, we must insist on passing beyond trite accusations and name calling to resolve hardball questions about race relations. Telling the truth would be a good start even when people don’t want to hear it.
Jesse Lee Peterson founded an organization called, BOND, (www.bondaction.org) “uniting the races with truth instead of dividing them with lies.” The show closes with news stories and persecution update.Read More
Complex Question _ coercion by asking a loaded question. Supposing or inferring intent, placing the second party in an uncomfortable or confusing position.
1. “Is there anything hidden in your carry-on that could hurt me or anyone on the plane?
2. “How often do you lie to authority figures?”
3. “Will you finally accept reality and admit that you are wrong and I’m right?”
These are just a few examples of complex questions. They are “loaded” because they imply a fact that hasn’t been established. The complex nature of the question means that a simple yes or no answer will infer guilt. It attempts to set a ground rule for further incrimination. These type of questions are constructed to do just that. The person being asked the complex question may simply ask a return question to diffuse it. For example:
TSA worker: “Is there anything hidden in your carry-on that could hurt me or anyone on the plane?
Passenger: “What can hurt you?” “What is dangerous to have in my bag?”
First, it’s assumed that you’re hiding something. Next, you would have to know everything that could hurt anyone before you could truthfully answer. Maybe someone has a rare allergy to something you’re carrying but you wouldn’t know that unless they told you!
Watch out for the loaded question and be prepared to ask the right question back!
It’s time to declare war on political correctness as it erodes the country’s ability to debate serious issues. One such orchestrated chorus is the “Islamophobe” charge chanted every time someone raises the issue of radical Islamic terrorism. Daniel Greenfield from Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com) highlights a recent attack piece by the Soros-sponsored Center for American Progress.
Does your county have a comprehensive development plan? Now you know your local county supervisors didn’t dream it up, so where did it originate? Tom DeWeese at the American Policy Center (www.americanpolicy.org) tells us it’s all tangled with Agenda 21 and an organization known as ICLEI. One thing you will note is that after your county finishes implementing “your plan,” nothing gets done without someone’s permission and paying lots of money to do it.
Then it’s time to return to “yesteryear” (corny expression, isn’t it?) and see how far we’ve come with consensus thinking, especially in the area of education. Charlotte Iserbyt (www.deliberatedumbingdown.com) and Berit Kjos (www.crossroad.to) are heard in this vintage Steel on Steel interview from September of 1998.
John’s boralogue analyzes the collapsing strings of progressive ideas stretching back over six decades as the weight of reality overwhelms their sustainability. But ideologies always die hard and their adherents always attempt keeping them afloat, while sounding increasingly shrill.Read More