Tag Archives: logical fallacy

Liberal Logic Exposed.

hrc

Originally shared here.

Richard Goodstein was on the O’reilly Factor tonight and was defending Hillary Clinton.  The first thing he said was an equivocation based on a fundamental attribution error which is characterizing Trump as a Liar when, in spite of people constantly asserting that he is a liar he has been vindicated after every accusation and no proof has been presented proving that he lied, or attempted to mislead intentionally.  When he misspeaks because he doesn’t use a teleprompter they say that he lied.  When he uses the wrong nomenclature or he is vague or non specific they insist that he lied.

Eric Bolling held his feet to the fire and didn’t let him excuse bad behavior with assumed bad behavior and his red herring.  Goodstein proceeds with the second strategy B saying that people don’t watch Arabic TV so they don’t know whether it is true or not.   This is an obfuscation, it is either demonstrably true or it is emphatically false and the truth of the matter is that the answer is already known.  My advocates monitor the blogs from all over the world and some of my advocates do speak Arabic and Farsi here is one of the translations of their news program Click here for link! .  First of all, Arabic Television isn’t ISIS recruiting videos, so this is a tacit conflation of two different subjects.  Secondly this is an argument from the ignorance of the average person in America, it suggests sense people in general don’t know it is not known.  Which is to say it isn’t true one way or another.

When confronted with the fact that there currently are terrorist recruitment videos with Obama and Bill Clinton he uses and argument that he can’t logically use because it contradicts his own position that if a person is being used in recruitment videos they are doing something wrong and are aiding in terrorist recruitment.  He asks if it is being suggested that people shouldn’t contradict terrorist ideology because they might be used in recruitment videos.  This leading question falsifies all of his former position.  He can’t make this argument.

Liberals are creepy, disgusting, arrogant, and consciously evil.  They are so stupid that they don’t realize that everybody sees through their horse shit now.  You Godless, Lawless, Evil Doers can’t Wag the Dog anymore…

dick

The Reason I am MGTOW

L051247Now to be honest I am not officially a member yet because I haven’t signed on to their site.    But in another manner of speaking I have been MGTOW for years in spirit just not in name.  I started this page 3 maybe 4 years ago and it is currently connected to an ex-gf’s account.

untitledhttps://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Adam-Wolfe/383505548376524?hc_location=stream

I have not had a lot of good luck with women in my life.  As a matter of fact the vast majority of my problems have been caused by women or been about women. https://usaguru.wordpress.com/author/

american guru

After my first girl friend and Fiance’ I promised myself that I would never get involved in an exclusive relationship with another woman until I understood women.  I spent the next 20 years studying women and relationship, human psychology, history, the occult, philosophy, philology, linguistics, etc.  I was a bouncer, a stripper, a chef, a stand up comedian, and an author.  I now will not get in an exclusive relationship with a woman BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WOMEN.

As I was repairing the problems with modern psychology as it is practiced, I noticed something peculiar, what inspired me was deborah Tannen’s work on male and female communication rituals.  I realized that if you took every logical fallacy and every cognitive bias and used them all of the time, you would sound exactly like a woman.

This prompted me to look at the problem like this.  From a linguistic philosopher’s perspective, how are male and female brain’s in relationship with on another?  How does the extreme feminine bias of the western mind factor into emergent properties that come out of collective western judgments and opinions?  What does this mean for society and the future of Western society?  What does it mean for me?

untitled4

I realized that men have certain traits that occur more commonly than they do in women.  Our society forbids us from scrutinizing or criticizing women, it treats women like a privileged class of people that is not inclined to look at it’s own failures, learn from them, or correct them.  A type of sex based oligarchy in which women are considered moral authorities on account of having a vagina.  This was affecting the relationships of the individuals, and it was creating these social events which I began to predict with more and more accuracy.  I studied the natural inclination or women when left unchecked and what they would do, how they socially climb, how they think.  What I realized was that women were destroying the civilized world and making it weak and indefensible for the incursion of Islam.

rezn1

What I observed was the emasculation of the male mind through the forcing of female communication rituals or radical political correctness, a meritocracy of pleasantness in which a person could be an incorrect douchebag pleasantly, but you couldn’t speak the truth if it was unpleasant and you couldn’t point out the psychopaths or expose the pretenders to reason like Socrates did without being forced to drink the Hemlock.

the-mind-hackerI originally wrote a piece for my ex-gf’s blog, which she has so considerately set to invitation only, even though I generated all of the content on her blog and it was still generating web traffic without her promoting it.  The name of the piece was called “As the Structures of Authority collapse”  there was another piece called, “unsustainable emergent properties in human judgments”.  They were time stamped so you can see exactly when they were written, and that they were indeed predictive.

Anyway, I have learned not to rely on women, and I hope never to be dependent on a woman again for her to do her part in a relationship and to carry her own weight.  I want a working relationship and women, much like psychopaths, enter into relationship for their own benefit, to steal from relationship or to socially climb in relationship, they are detrimental to relationship and they antagonize their own and everybody else’s success, because they only look at things to see how those things might benefit themselves and they never create more value than they consume.  Their life some is always less than zero, they are oxygen thieves, attention suckers, and space fillers.  They aren’t homo sapiens.

brad

Participating with the Premise.

Image In debate, not only is it necessary to remain rational it is necessary to remain consistently rational.  When a person makes a logical fallacy or a cognitive bias it needs to be addressed and corrected before the conversation can continue.  If you continue the debate without correcting the error you are granting equity to the other person in the conversation.  You are acting as though they have not made an error and by staying in the conversation you are participating with the premise that they are being and have consistently been rational. If the other person in the conversation is not being rational, the conversation itself is not rational.  If one person tries to remain rational in a debate while the other person is making no effort to be rational or proceed rationally, this creates a disparate impact in favor of the person that isn’t being rational.  When you get in a fight with a clown, even if you win you lose. It is necessary to proceed correctly.  The words process and practice come from the greek word praxis.  All valid philosophies have a praxis. A philosophy by its very nature has to be self referentially consistent, if it creates disparate impact it is invalid and therefore not a rational philosophy.  If a person can’t be falsified by their own philosophy it is not a philosophy and they are not rational.  So as you see they falsify themselves by their own procedure.  A rational person proceeds rationally, nothing can be proven by irrational means, that is why due process exists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.  —Calvin O. Schrag[1]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin HeideggerHannah ArendtPaulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.

 

I do stand up as Adam Wolfe check out my page.

305151_413790235348055_1852213367_n

I do stand up as Adam Wolfe check out my page.

this is one of my quotes.  I practice transgressive sacrality through my stand up comedy.  Stand up is the last bastion of freedom of speech.  If you can be offended you need to be offended.  No more Ellen De generic comedians, “lets tell some quirky stories that don’t hurt anybody’s hyper-sensitive feelings.”