Syllogisms Part Two

So much fun! Let’s try some more.
Trump’s Temporary Ban is based on information previously processed by security operatives of the Obama administration.

Trump’s ban is based on information that was not available to the Obama administration.

Except for the top politicized jobs the data gatherers are the same.

Why do these experts agree that nothing significant has changed.
Why are they quitting in droves?

If radical Islam is the problem and the Obama effort was incompetent,why limit the ban to countries Obama has selected.

Why is the ban temporary if the threat isn’t ?

It is a coincidence that Trump has no financial interests in those 7 countries.

I.C.E. activity has not increased since the inauguration.
I.C E.activity is sweeping up only people who are illegal and who are also criminals.

We will have to permanently restrict individual liberties and constitutional rights in order to cope with the perpetual threat of destruction from outside that trumpeter turned POTUS and his faithful have invoked.It’s OK because they are patriots!

Autocracy is our only hope.Communications theory says that we end up with structures and language resembling that of our communicators,battle antagonists included.
Maybe Putin will repudiate cruise missile sponsorship so we can ask him if Trump should be emperor.Netanyahu is here now with his billionaire sponsor to thank Trump for the monies lavished on Israel by Bush 1,Bush 2 Clinton and Obama.Let’s ask him.



  1. I got this web page from my buddy who shared with me concerning this web site and at the moment this time I am visiting this web site and reading very informative content at this time.

  2. This version of fun avoids constructing a logic chain requiring different antecedent facts by combining opposites as though they were not incompatible.Indeed at times making it appear that they were somehow interdependent.Well done! But in the real world,at what price? Credibility? Reliance on “alternative facts” ? Reality testing?

    1. “Reality testing” is exactly what this is about. “Real world” consequences, the price and the rewards, are what it is about. When an argument is not clear and can be shown to be unclear we understand better what needs to be addressed in order to reveal “real”. If an idea is presented as if it was the only possibility but it can be demonstrated empirically or logically that there are other possibilities, we can then know that a perception of “reality” is being distorted by excess certitude. Opposites can be incompatible and can be interdependent depending on what it is being discussed. For instance, the human concepts of freedom and discipline are opposites but lack pragmatic meaning without one being applied to the other (The freedom to choose and engage the right disciplines will increase options thereby expanding freedom – example – Education will open doors.).
      “Alternative facts” can be a legitimate description given the overriding “fact” that often what is BELIEVED to be “real” is not the objective reality. So we differ in beliefs, and often issues are such that we lack adequate data to claim with certitude that one belief is a “fact” and another is not (In this case there are legitimate alternatives). The accuracy of an idea is no better than the quality of its logical and empirical support. The scientific method is a means (the best?) by which our beliefs are to be most tested and thus become credible – having the highest probability of being accurate to the “real world”.

  3. Hopefully all our efforts to make best sense of it all (the task) will be experienced as “fun”. Daedal2207 presented a number of statements that may or may not be true, may or may not be pertinent to judgments of risk, or lack of risk, related to Trump policies. Let’s see what some of the possibilities are:
    Trump’s Temporary Ban can be as Daedal2207 tells us “based on information previously processed by security operatives of the Obama administration” and simultaneously be “based on information that was not available to the Obama administration.” This is because “information” comes in many forms and from many sources.
    It is possible that “except for the top politicized jobs the data gatherers are the same.” It may also be true that “these experts agree that nothing significant has changed.” But most “experts” have some differences and many minds do not agree on what is “significant”. If these “experts” are truly “quitting in droves” it could mean that they perceive their “personal cause” to be no longer valued or they might have to serve (what they believe to be) an unworthy administration? Perhaps they don’t like for good or bad reasons their new bosses.
    Obama could have been “incompetent” in some ways and not in others. The “ban” was limited to those countries that Obama’s administration selected because they are those most likely to provide incomplete or inaccurate histories of those wishing access to the United States. The ban was “temporary” in order to provide some time needed for review of the problem and possible corrections. There is no reason to believe that such a ban could not be ended or extended – depending on circumstances and what we can learn during this hiatus.
    The “threat” is of many natures. For instance, we have immigration to our country by those who wish to do us harm and also the big one of a religion containing unknown numbers intending to physically or otherwise destroy all other religions – and secularism as well.
    In this world today there are approximately 196 countries. 50 of them are Muslim. The probability that Trump would have businesses in any group of 7 depends on the number of countries in which Trump has businesses. The Washington Post in 2015 reported Trump properties/interests in six Muslim countries (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Dubai, and Qatar). Consider the fact that unlike the six mentioned, many (all?) of the banned countries are chaotic, and/or not “business friendly”. A claim that these particular banned countries were selected because Trump’s money interests are not affected is a stretch (At what point does it become slander?). More interesting is what kinds of agendas inspire such an argument?
    Is the threat “from outside” only a fiction that is erroneously believed, or is it an objective reality? If the threat is real, it has nothing to do with being “patriots” – or not.
    The scientific method, when adhered to, tends to protect us from engaging in the subjective distortions of “structures and language resembling that of our communicators, battle antagonists included”.
    Consider an almost certain premise (no-impact is highly unlikely): The existence of Israel will be better for the future of mankind or a detriment.
    Perhaps the following is one bit of evidence that would support our selecting the probable answer: Israel has acquired a number of patents and Nobel Prizes that dramatically exceed those achieved by all its neighbors combined.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.