Syllogisms To Build A Dream On

Flynn acted on his own in briefing the Russian ambassador the day of Obama’s Sanctions.
POTUS has been concerned for weeks about Flynn’s discretion.

Why was he concerned.

There are daily briefings held by the administration involving classified data in which Flynn and Pence were present.

Classified material was discussed in front of someone whom POTUS had concerns about leaking data.

Why was he kept in attendance?

Pence was unaware of Trump’s reservations.

His defense of Flynn was casual but resonating.

Why didn’t he say he didn’t know ?

DOJ didn’t warn about Flynn until last Thursday?

Where then did Trump’s concerns come from?

What are those documents on Public display at Mar A Lago?
(All below relates to Mar A Lago)
Does an increased membership fee( doubled) insure security?

Why are those documents on display when Japanese Prime Minister Abe is being briefed by Trump on the N.Korean missile firing.

Why?

Putin has displayed a new cruise missile that violates a treaty based arms reduction originated in Reagan’s time.
It is coincidence that has nothing to do with Trump’s vulnerabilities.

Nobody sh..s the sh….r.

Why?

Categories:

6 Comments

  1. I was looking for a major premise, a minor premise, leading to a logical conclusion. This is the structure of a syllogism. But what Daedal2207 has presented is a list of debatable statements (premises) that only suggest possible conclusions. Let’s look at a few of them:
    Daedal2207: “Flynn acted on his own in briefing the Russian ambassador the day of Obama’s Sanctions.”
    Why did Daedal2207 choose to use the word “briefing” when the news reports said, “calls”, “contacted”, “had conversations with”? Doesn’t the word “briefing” color the premise such that it suggests conclusions other than what the objective truth might have been?
    Daedal2207: “POTUS has been concerned for weeks about Flynn’s discretion.”
    I thought that I was paying attention to the news but maybe I missed it. Did Trump admit to “concern” (and when?) or is this another person’s (possibly newsperson’s) judgment? And if it existed, how was the degree of “concern” established on a scale from barely to extremely?
    Given that we don’t know the answer to the nature and degree of Trump’s “concern”, logic would tell us that statements, questions and implied conclusions built by those working on the assumption that they possess such knowledge may or may not be true. Such as:
    Daedal2207: “Classified material was discussed in front of someone whom POTUS had concerns about leaking data.” And, “Why was he (Flynn) kept in attendance?”
    If premises are not entirely true (includes “without bias”) even the best of computers will arrive at inaccurate conclusions.

    1. Sir, it would be greatly appreciated if you did not use the word “bias” when expressing an accusatory OPINION on factual material. The spin can work both ways, but facts are facts. Frankly, the gullible denial of what the whole world is witnessing … i.e. an incompetent administration led by an obviously compromised leader, ignorant of not only domestic issues (Puzder, the latest), but international policy understandings with the dangerous conditions which bring about the expected consequences of economically powerful and ambitious nations filling the void … is baffling. The wishful attributes are embarrassing to read in light of both sides of the aisle expressing dismay and concern (polite way of stating panic). The emperor has no clothes! On the other hand, if you relish demoralizing chaos, you’re in puppy heaven.

      P. S. Is it fair to assume that Trump is being “nice” to Flynn in fear of what he might have to say when subpoenaed before a congressional investigative committee with the question: what did your boss know and when did he know it? Is ignorance really blissful?

      1. Yes SB, “facts are facts”. I thought that I was being clear that it is the “facts” as presented by Daedal2207 that are in question. Indeed, I asked a number of questions about those “facts” that needed clarification if the conclusions suggested by Daedal2207’s use of them are to be given credit as being accurate-to-objective-realities. These questions had to do with the “facts” as to Trump’s “concern” (IF he was concerned? – When was he concerned? – What was the degree and nature of this concern?). IF Daedal 2207 (or anyone else) can provide clear and verifiable answers to these questions his use of such premises would lead to conclusions of substance and we should all take notice. Because such answers are not forthcoming, a neutral (unbiased) mind has to acknowledge that we are dealing with opinions that are riding on a higher degree of certitude (as to the full truthfulness of important “facts”) than all the evidence would logically support.
        As for “ignorance being blissful” – I think that we can all understand that even the brightest among us is an ignoramus relative to all that could be known. Pretending to know more than we really know can provide great psychological rewards (even highs) but it tends to lead us into painful conflict with many realities. The Trump-centered dangers projected by the leftists may be true, but their degree of passionate conviction is not justified given the many other logical possibilities; possibilities that intellectuals on the right so easily set out for all to see. How interesting it is that so many have (blissful or otherwise rewarding?) mindsets that prevent the seeing of even the simplest of logical structures – the other possibilities – often the higher probabilities!

    2. The fun consisted of turning the process on its head.Juxtaposed statements are often contradictory forcing reconstruction of the logical chain on which they are based.The clue to what is required is the word syllogism.While some things can indeed be taken too literally( Helmholtzian Physics based psychology itself based on entropy(Freud)the constructed premises indicate the dilemma that the country has been put in.Did you put equal energy into all of them DS? I did try to focus things a little with questions.Try part 2 .Can you construct unbiased premises without dismissing the task?

  2. We followed the rabbit into the hole and now we’re in the world of “Alice in Wonderland.” Our logical thinking is made to listen to alternative logic … the incredulity of illogical narrative. We’re witnessing the chaos that is brought by a tornado on land … a typhoon at sea. The crew can be shuffled around, conned into believing that they can straighten the capsizing ship. But, their captain is demented … never apprenticed/learned how to command a ship. Ignorance, with arrogance and insecurity, is at the helm and that’s the problem. The captain is a coward and the only way to hide his incompetence is to spread fear and uncertainty. The solution is obvious.

    Col. Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell while at the State Department, was interviewed this evening. He predicted that the competent and admired Defense Secretary Mattis would be next to resign … not wishing to go against his principles. The Republican-controlled Congress should pay attention. The (opportunistic) world is watching and waiting. What are the rules … security, protocol, ethics? All we have left now from our Constitution are freedom of speech (the press) and our courts. And, our conscience.

    You always keep my little grey cells working, daedal2207. Happy Valentine’s Day to all!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s