A candidate has been elected president and has been given unprecedented immunity from criminal liability. This on the basis of (1) fallacies, and, (2) a paradox. Let us see.
One Ancient Greek thinker once pointed out, if I am a liar, then what I say is a lie. But then, he says, if that is the case, then what I say is false. I have just said, he points out, “I am a liar.” Ergo, that is false. Ergo, I am not a liar. So, I am a liar, because I have said so, and I am not a liar because what I have said is a lie. So, I am a liar but I am not a liar. Confusing.
Any situation that leads to a contradiction is a paradox.
Any contradiction is a statement that is both true and false at the same time and in the same breadth.
Paradoxes and contradictions confuse.
Here is a Mathematical Logic proof that from a contradiction, one can imply any statement whatsoever.
P ∧ ~P Given
P 1, Simplification
P ∨ Q 2, Addition where Q is any statement whatsoever
~P ∧ P 1, Commutation
~P 4, Simplification
Q 3, 5, Disjunctive Syllogism
From a contradiction P ∧ ~P, one can derive any statement Q whatsoever.
If I Yao Ming is a dwarf, then I must be Darth Vader.
Leave paradoxes and contradictions for the moment.
The claim is that there has been a conspiracy by some machine to prevent the election of a presidential candidate.
A popular argument to support this, among others, is as follows.
If there is a conspiracy, then a deluge of cases are going to be filed finding the presidential candidate guilty in at least one. There is a deluge of cases filed finding the presidential candidate guilty in at least one. Ergo, there has been a conspiracy.
Here is another one.
If there is a conspiracy, then assassination attempts are going to take place. Assassination attempts have taken place. Ergo, there has been a conspiracy.
Presume that there is indeed a conspiracy. Chances are the legacy media, most potent political tools, are going to be used to support this conspiracy. Means, legacy media is going to be in play against this guilty candidate.
There is little chance this guilty candidate is going to win. Under the circumstances. No one ought to simply accept the results if this guilty candidate loses. Supporters claim these.
In the end, the guilty candidate has not lost and no proof in any court has been laid down to support this belief that there has been a conspiracy. There has been no conspiracy at all. No law fare or any of that sort has has happened.
This means, the guilty verdict, has has not been an imposition by any conspiracy.
This means this candidate has indeed been guilty of breaking the law.
This guilty candidate has now won the election and, moreover, has been granted, in advance, unfettered presidential immunity from criminal liability by a court where the majority of justices have been appointed by this same candidate during an earlier presidential term.
The claim, however, is that he has won the election despite the opposition by the conspiracy. There has been a conspiracy except that this candidate has been such a genius, no conspiracy could have won against him.
If he is a genius, he wins the election. He has won the election. Ergo, he is a genius.
Easy to say. However, notice the following.
If there is a conspiracy, then a deluge of cases are going to be filed finding the presidential candidate guilty in at least one. There is a deluge of cases filed finding the presidential candidate guilty in at least one. Ergo, there has been a conspiracy.
Compare with this.
If he is a genius, he wins the election. He has won the election. Ergo, he is a genius.
Both are no different in form of the following.
If I have AIDS, then I get sickly. I get sickly. Ergo, I have AIDS.
These three arguments are fallacious. Meaning, even if the premisses are both true, it does not necessarily follow that the conclusion is also true. The fallacy involved is called Affirming the Consequent Fallacy.
The belief that there has been a conspiracy has been used to sow fear among the voters. In which case, in addition, another fallacy has been employed. This second fallacy is called Straw Man Fallacy.
"The straw man fallacy ... logical fallacy where an opponent's argument is misrepresented or oversimplified to make it easier to attack or refute. ... the person constructs a "straw man" version of it ... then proceeds to knock down this distorted version.”
Now add this to the analysis.
Owner of one legacy media agency accused for bias in favor of this guilty candidate, in a recent meeting, has just expressed his elation about the victory of this guilty candidate. In addition, earlier, three major legacy media agencies have refused endorsing any candidate despite having done so in the past. Good enough proof that there has been no legacy media support at large of any such conspiracy claimed.
Deep behind support of this guilty candidate by big names like the owners of these legacy media agencies seems to be a principle. Unlike in the case of those with no college education who have simply swallowed fallacious reasoning fed to them, this support by big names has been principled support and not simply based on the possibility of more financial gains as claimed by commentarists.
Democracies lead to mob rule. What America needs is ‘Constitutional Republic. Not democracy. What is needed, autocratic constitutional republic that ensures no mob gets to rule.
Sounds rational. Unfortunately, it is not.
Debates are essential to democracies. A candidate may have a good chance of winning an election by sheer luck if voters are unfamiliar with the policies the candidates represent.
Democracies are established to prevent rule by accidents of birth.
Mobs are impervious to reason—there is no debating with mobs.
"Democracies lead to mob rule" is a paradox.
When participants in democratic practices lose the ability to reason or recognize sound reasoning, those practices cease to be truly democratic. The claim to democracy becomes paradoxical.
So now, here is where things stand.
A candidate has been elected president and has been given unprecedented immunity from criminal liability on the basis of (1) fallacies, and, (2) a paradox.
Back to paradoxes and contradictions. Lies and fallacies mix with truth, contradictions ensue.
Contradictions confuse. Mental models full of these are confused mental models. Clear danger to the public.
Wondering how everyone is taking this.
Comments