DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 DUDE? Why Did My Essay Suck So Bad?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 DUDE? Why Did My Essay Suck So Bad? Or… How to Write Better Essays For Sociology Courses Dr. David Aveline Behavioural Science Department Mount Royal College Revised, May, 2005 What Does the Professor Want Me to Write? - Part 2 How Does the Professor Want Me to Write? - Part 3 Download the full PDF document Part One Introduction 1.) Ad Hominem 9.) Begging the Question 2.) Ad Verecundiam 10.) Biased Sample 3.) Appeal to Popularity 11.) Burden of Proof 4.) Appeal to Consequences 12.) Fallacy of Composition 5.) Appeal to Fear 13.) Confusing Cause and Effect 6.) Appeal to Flattery 14.) False Dilemma file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (1 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 7.) Appeal to Ridicule 15.) Non Sequitur 8.) Appeal to Tradition 16.) Next Demand Introduction The word “critical” is often misunderstood as negative. We think of film critics who lambaste the latest Hollywood blockbuster as inept and derivative, or people who criticize us for what we wear, say, or do. Faultfinding may well be part of criticism, but it is only one aspect. Criticism also has positive aspects in its effort to analyze issues. Essays in sociology involve what is called critical thinking -- the ability to step back from an issue, recognize its components, and see the relationships among them. As a result, there is an analysis as well as a self-reflection of that analysis to ensure that it is not clouded by personal biases. If you were to explain why same-sex couples face obstacles when adopting children, you might look at the history of gay rights struggles, the influence of religion on people’s attitudes toward gays, and the political climate of a society. You might conclude that such couples have difficulty because of the way homosexuality is conceptualized in society. You would not say that same-sex couples are immoral, nor would you say that children should have both a mother and father. This is not critical thinking, it is valuative thinking which assesses issues as good or bad. Valuative thinking is not part of sociology. Sociology looks at issues as a whole and attempts to understand them as such. Nothing more. Critical thinking has two basic components. First, there is identification. When answering a question, you should identify the relevant issues. If you were asked why India has had a rapid growth in population, you would identify factors that might have affected it -- poverty, economic climate, family planning, education, etc. If, however, you said that India’s population has grown because people don’t know when to stop having babies, or because they have nothing better to do than have sex, you would not have identified the relevant issues. The second component is analysis -- to break an issue into its parts, explain the relevance of each, and show how all parts are connected. In the case of India’s population, you might say that the system of agriculture is important because large families are necessary to have enough labour to work the land. You might also say that poverty is relevant because children bring in revenue to poor families. In so doing, you have explained cause and effect and drawn connections for the reader. Critical thinking is thus a process where one identifies relevant components and analyzes them on the basis of their connections. It is a disciplined approach to phenomena based on clarity, accuracy, consistency, the use of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (2 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 good evidence, and good reasoning. It is first the development of those skills, and second the practice of them. Often, wonder why they receive poor grades on their essays. They feel that they have given good arguments to support their claims and have thus carried out critical thinking. They are surprised when the instructor has not accepted them. One reason for poor grades is the use of logical fallacies. Claims appear to be supported by sound arguments, but those arguments fail upon closer examination. What follows is a list of some of the more commonly used logical fallacies. Read them carefully and avoid them in your essays. 1.) Ad Hominem, or “Of course she would say that.” Politicians use this logical fallacy often in their speeches. Typically, a claim is made by someone, and the argument against it is based not upon its logical construction but upon the person making the claim. Examples: ● Janet: “Abortion is harmful to our society.” Latisha: “Of course you would say that. You’re a devout Catholic.” ● “Senator Rodriguez says that raising taxes is necessary to stabilize the economy. Of course, she is a Republican and her party has a history of such claims.” In both cases, a claim is refuted not upon its own merits but upon the character or interests of the claim maker. The claim itself is ignored. 2.) Ad Verecundiam, or “It is be true because of who said it.” People often believe what others say because of who they are, even though they are not experts in a field. Politicians make scientific claims with no training; preachers make claims about social trends having done no research; sports figures endorse products constantly. If what someone says is to be taken as legitimate support of a claim, that person should have expertise. Simply being successful, famous, or an expert in another field is not sufficient. Examples: ● “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV. I can assure you that taking Headache-Eaze is the best way to get rid of headaches.” ● “I’m a mother of three small children. Children should not watch violent shows on TV because they will make them violent later in life.” A scientific claim is made by an actor with no medical expertise and a claim needing applied research is made by someone who conducted no research at all. Playing a doctor does not make someone knowledgeable about medicine, nor does having children make one an expert on the psychological effects of media for all children. 3.) Appeal to Popularity, or “It must be true because many people think so.” file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (3 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 This logical fallacy is also called the “bandwagon approach.“ People are asked to believe a claim not because of its merits, but because many other people believe it. If something is widely believed, it is evidence of its popularity, not its truth. The truth of a claim should rest only upon its own merits. Examples: ● “God exists. More than ninety percent of Americans believe in God.” ● “Nelson is a paranoid schizophrenic. I have spoken to three people he talked to this week and they agree.” If millions of people believe in God, this attests to the popularity of that belief. It does not prove it. If many people think someone suffers from a mental disorder, this again attests to the popularity of the belief only. Arguments may be popularly accepted, but this acceptance should not be confused with support. 4.) Appeal to Consequences, or “Accept my idea or face the consequences” For this fallacy, a claim is said to be true because if it were not, there would be consequences. In reality, potential consequences have no bearing on the truth of a claim. Examples: ● “God must exist. If not, there would be no morality and the world would be a terrible place.” ● “If everyone were homosexual, there would be no reproduction and the world would die out.” The first example is a claim that God is the only source of morality when in fact there are others. The second is similar, suggesting that acceptance of any homosexuality will throw the world into a state of complete homosexuality to the exclusion of any reproductive desire. This is simply not the case. If claims are to be supported, they must have qualities of their own independent of any implied consequences. 5.) Appeal to Fear, or “Accept this as true or you will be sorry.” This fallacy is otherwise know as “scare tactics.” A statement intended to produce fear is made, and then a claim is said to be true because it will prevent the object of that fear. Examples: ● “Would you want your daughter pregnant at age 15? No? Then never allow her to ride in cars with boys.” ● “Would you want to see your children get AIDS? No? Then we must not allow sex education in the schools.” ● “Senator Grundy is the best candidate for the job. Those voting for the other candidate will bring this country to ruin.” Even though this type of reasoning has great effects on people’s behaviour, it is fallacious. Scaring people file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/OHarrison/My%20Documents/Library-Live/help/writing/dude_1.html (4 of 9) [7/30/2008 12:01:30 PM] How to Write Better Essays - Part 1 into believing a claim has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of that claim. 6.) Appeal to Flattery, or “Accept this as true because you are a smart person.” Other names for this logical fallacy are “apple polishing,“ “brown nosing,” and “ass kissing.” A claim is made, and then people are told that they are likely to accept it because of the good qualities they possess.
Recommended publications
  • A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)

    A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)

    A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES PJAEE, 17(12) (2020) A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy1, Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi2 1,2University of Karbala - College of Education. Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy , Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi , A Pragmatic Study Of Fallacy In George W. Bush's Political Speeches , Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4). ISSN 1567-214x. Keywords: Political speeches, Pragmatics, Fallacy, Argument. Abstract: A fallacy can be described as the act of issuing a faulty argument to support and reinforce a previously published argument for purposes of persuasion. However, a fallacy is a broad subject that has been addressed from several viewpoints. A few experiments have tried to counter the fallacy pragmatically. However, the attempts above have suffered from shortcomings, which made them incomplete accounts in this regard. Hence, this study has set itself to provide pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, forms, methods, and applications are concerned. These models use many models produced by several academics and the researchers themselves' observations. The validity of the established models was tested by reviewing seven speeches by George W. Bush taken before and after the war in Iraq (2002-2008). The analyses demonstrated the efficacy of the models created. Mostly because they have yielded varied results, it is clear that fallacy is a process of stages, with each round distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies. 1. Introduction: The fallacy has been regarded as a critical issue by numerous studies investigating the definition from different lenses.
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media

    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media

    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
  • Fallacies in Reasoning

    Fallacies in Reasoning

    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    But some groups are more equal than others – a critical review of the group- criterion in the concept of discrimination Draft version, December 2011 Introduction In this article I aim to discuss what I consider an underappreciated problem in the conceptualisation of discrimination, to wit limiting the definition to particular groups. That some form of grouping, and the divisions between people this implies, plays a necessary part in the definition of discrimination is obvious, in that the basis of discrimination is differential treatment, which presupposes distinguishing between those to be treated one way and those to be treated another. Any way of doing so may be said to rely on dividing people into groups, even if inexplicit and unreflective. Using groups in this rather trivial sense is uncontroversially necessary to the definition, because unless such distinctions are drawn no form of discrimination, even understood in its widest, non-normative sense, would be possible. But it is not this trivial sense with which I am concerned here. My concern is rather what I shall call the “group-criterion”: the idea, prominent in both legal and philosophical definitions, that particular groups are the subject-matter of the concept of discrimination, that these can be established prior to any specific case of discrimination, and, most importantly, that not all groups can be subject to discrimination. Typically, this condition is expressed in the form of what we might call “the prohibited list”: a selection of traits that must not be the basis of
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I

    Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I

    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf

    10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf

    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
  • Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Example in Media

    Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Example in Media

    Appeal To Tradition Fallacy Example In Media Alonso bulldogging properly. Smith remains calendered after Stearn forsakes authentically or required any reshipments. Synoptistic and choreographic Taddeo inculcated some tuckahoes so where'er! In deciding whether the writer simply dismissing my belief because generations have read and example in to appeal tradition can have a world was Unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be not arrogant to discussion. What fallacies appeal to tradition has made or fallacious generalizations to tradition. Caesar, not to suit him. The analysis by appealing to continually support this century, andrea dworkin has evolved successfully by. While this tradition. The fallacy often needs to support his past and reporter is used in? Yet people made explicit materials have learned a to tradition. Just as Apollo was born on the Mediterranean island Delos, Napoleon was born on the Mediterranean island Corsica. Or, are least other investors can secure not buying the stock at what current price. As appeals held that appropriately employ to best with little respect. Defining markets through examples were biased ideal or appeal to tradition to cheat if too few carefully lined up? That present ambiguous problem of a fugitive goes unnoticed allows the illusion that an argument is via real deduction. The awareness has to appeal tradition fallacy in? The permission of ai systems is true because of loud, andrea and fallacy in? Do we want to sensitive to be easy free country? Aristotle argued instead observed in government for information. The similarities between people around in persuasive because a topic for president, this is simplified some old argument theorists quarrel with.
  • Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies by Stephen Downes Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License

    Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies by Stephen Downes Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License

    Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies Stephen Downes This site is licensed under Creative Commons By-NC-SA Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies by Stephen Downes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License. Based on a work at www.fallacies.ca. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.fallacies.ca/copyrite.htm. This license also applies to full-text downloads from the site. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 How To Use This Guide ............................................................................................................................ 4 Fallacies of Distraction ........................................................................................................................... 44 Logical Operators............................................................................................................................... 45 Proposition ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Truth ................................................................................................................................................. 47 Conjunction ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Truth Table .......................................................................................................................................
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument

    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument

    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
  • PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking

    PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking

    PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking Sessions 23 & 24 May 5th & 7th, 2020 Evaluating Arguments: Sufficient Evidence, Reasonable Inferences, Respectful Argumentation 1 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. Ø Here are four basic criteria which will all be satisfied by a good argument: I. The premises are true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners. So far, we have discussed fallacies that involve: • the use of language to present false or misleading evidence • the use of statistics to present false or misleading evidence, insufficient evidence, or to make faulty inferences – This week we’ll go into more detail about fallacies involving the use of language to present 2 insufficient evidence or to make faulty inferences. A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. • Fallacies that fail to satisfy this criterion of a good argument make faulty inferences: – they draw a conclusion that isn’t guaranteed (or extremely likely) to be true even if the premises are true. Ønon sequitur (Latin for ‘it doesn’t follow’) = when an argument draws a conclusion that just isn’t supported by the reasoning they have provided. ]P1] Dorothy is wearing red shoes today. [C] Obviously, red is Dorothy’s favorite color. » Many of the fallacies we’ll consider this week can be classified as subtypes of non sequiturs, • which draw particular types of conclusions from particular types of inadequate evidence.
  • Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

    Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

    Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Version 1.4 Matthew J. Van Cleave Lansing Community College Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking by Matthew J. Van Cleave is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Table of contents Preface Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments 1.1 What is an argument? 1.2 Identifying arguments 1.3 Arguments vs. explanations 1.4 More complex argument structures 1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form 1.6 Validity 1.7 Soundness 1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments 1.9 Arguments with missing premises 1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting 1.11 Evaluative language 1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments 2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them? 2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives 2.3 Negation and disjunction 2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences 2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor” 2.6 The truth table test of validity 2.7 Conditionals 2.8 “Unless” 2.9 Material equivalence 2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements 2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference 2.12 How to construct proofs 2.13 Short review of propositional logic 2.14 Categorical logic 2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences 2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment 2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies 3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations 3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues 3.3 Analogical arguments 3.4 Causal arguments 3.5 Probability 3.6 The conjunction fallacy 3.7 The base rate fallacy 3.8 The small numbers fallacy 3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy 3.10 Gambler’s fallacy Chapter 4: Informal fallacies 4.1 Formal vs.
  • The Death Preppers Guide Book the Fine Art of Stating the Obvious

    The Death Preppers Guide Book the Fine Art of Stating the Obvious

    The Death Preppers Guide Book The Fine Art of Stating the Obvious 1 ©By :Peter-James :Mitchell 20201207 CONTENTS Ponder – 0 - Intro Ponder – 1 - Dissapointment Ponder – 2 – Fool to Phool Ponder – 3 – Star Lore of our Species Ponder – 4 – Astrology = Star Lore Ponder – 5 – Brief Astrology Overview Ponder – 6 – Astrology as a Logic Puzzle Ponder – 7 - Philosophy Ponder – 8 – Separated-ego and Soul Centred Ego Ponder – 9 – Power Corrupts Absolute Power Corrups Absolutely Ponder – 10 – Pretensional Logic Puzzle Game Ponder – 11 – Gender Ponder Ponder – 12 – Psyche and Psychology Ponder – 13 – Pisces Grace Ponder – 14 – Attitude of Grace Ponder – 15 – Phool Astrology Ponder – 16 – Only a Phool Ponder – 17 - Namaste Ponder – 18 – Chiromancy the fine art of Divination Ponder – 19 – Testimony to our arrival to the Age of Aquarius Ponder – 20 – Back to Pisces Ponder – 21 - Kabal Ponder – 22 – Resolution of Conflict Ponder – 23 – For those not familiar with Astrology Ponder – 24 – Only Dead Ponder – 25 – Cannabis Contortions Ponder – 26 – Quantum Language Ponder – 27 – Token Gesture of the Phools Militia 2 ©By :Peter-James :Mitchell 20201207 Ponder – 28 – Courtesy Notice for Public Servants Ponder – 29 – NOTICE-OF-UNDERSTANDING-AND-INTENT-MANDATE-COUNTER-CLAIM-CONDITIONAL-ACCEPTANCE Ponder – 30 – FOR THE QUANTUM NOTICE All Jester Images in this book are from Rumpel the Worldly Fool of Comedy 3 ©By :Peter-James :Mitchell 20201207 Ponder Zero F Hello Everyone! I welcome you all, as fellow members of my jolly big, beautiful, human family... to this Phoolosophy Adventure. This adventure is like a side show of divine and utter madness... exploring totally ridiculous, optimistic notions of where we are at, as a collective body of fellow individuating cells, of an organism we call humanity guided by the star lore of white fella dreaming, the ancient wisdom of Western Astrology and Tarot.