THE DICTATOR ISSUES ANOTHER PROCLAMATION

Go subscription, email posts. Fuck them. Then faxes. Then carrier pigeons. Then smoke signals.

Meanwhile, America continues to deteriorate into lawlessness on the highways:

“A group of robbers on the south side of Chicago appear to have taken a page out of the Gulf Cartel or Los Zetas manual for setting up roadblocks in order to carry out violent robberies. Just last week a group of three or four robbers have used a construction area in the city’s south side to set up roadblocks as a trap for motorists.

Once the motorists stop, they were assaulted and robbed, UPI news reported.”

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/04/01/chicago-robbers-appear-to-copy-mexican-cartel-roadblock-tactics/

Yep, they already use things like Paypal to shut down dissent against the medical industrial complex.

But, at least they have it going that the vast majority agree with petro-chemical based toxin medicine, as it requires almost no personal responsibility or brain-usage to follow directions. Hell, with smart phones you can now set your alarms to remind you not to skip your pills, or appointments. What a perfect world we are creating.

I have been amassing knowledge of nature in book and offline form as I fully expect this information to be shut down at the same time as our voiced displeasure. No “expert” knows everything, and no government-paid-shill expert, whom I have already caught in lie, after lie, after corporate-paid-for-lie, is going to tell me how to be healthy.

Prepare know for information black out and the illegalities of trying to access news in other parts of the world with the iGestapo watching, reading and recording at every turn.

Just in case, nice meeting you all. Maybe we can meet up on the other side.

Any of these sound familiar. Lies and deception with a willfully ignorant populace is hardly the stuff of magic but holy shit do the politicians and shysters know the tools in their tool belt well. I snagged this off the interweb but thought it could be useful for all of us. How many of these do you see daily!?
=========================================================================

When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer’s position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem: Latin for “to the man.” An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn’t exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone’s beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like “all,” “everyone,” “everything,” “absolute.”

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an “expert” or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.

argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don’t believe in God, you’ll burn in hell)

argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people’s ignorance.

argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

circular reasoning: stating in one’s proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few “answered” prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as “probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning” (The Mismeasure of Man).

excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don’t. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many “maybes.”

half truths (suppressed evidence): A statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

meaningless question: (e.g., “How high is up?” “Is everything possible?”) “Up” describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as “is,” “are,” “were,” “was,” “am,” “be,” or “been.”

misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) “Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive.” — Wallace Irwin

non sequitur: Latin for “It does not follow.” An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?

no true Christian (no true Scotsman): an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. Example: Many Christians in history have started wars. Reply: Well no true Christian would ever start a war.

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by.” Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn’t exist (e.g., prove God doesn’t exist; prove UFO’s haven’t visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, black race, white race, etc.

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party’s allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)

statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don’t care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. (From the email that I get on NoBeliefs.com this appears as the most common fallacy of all.)

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

Use-mention error: confusing a word or a concept with something that supposedly exists. For example an essay on THE HISTORY OF GOD does not refer to an actual god, but rather the history of the concept of god in human culture. (To avoid confusion, people usually put the word or phrase in quotations.

Thank you Tommy.

And I agree, they sure know how to use the tools in their toolbelts.

The most common argument in favor of TARP, FedRes “Easing,” or military spending, drug-enforcement spending, or nearly every other POS policy ruining citizens lives and our country, is the absence of a negative….

….if we didn’t spend 10 times the rest of the world on military spending, we would be threatened, invaded and annihilated! Yeah, prove that. Try spending the same as the rest of the world for a couple years and get back to me.

…if we didn’t jail potheads and small time dealers, the drug problem would be worse and you would be killed in the suburbs for drug money! Uh, yeah. Which is why incarceration is through the roof, yet use and even overdosing, is about the SAME as it has ever been.

…if we didn’t let the banks lie, and let them keep drawing real bonuses from fake profits, and if we didn’t throw trillions and trillions and trillions there way, and if we didn’t raise the minimum wage, enact health care, enter bullshit here, then the country would be in a DEPRESSION and all hope would be lost. Do I really have to get into this one? Yeah, right, rich fucks.

I am hard pressed to find anything the government/corporations do that doesn’t use one of those dirty tactics to suppress dissent.

And most sheep are so okay with that, trying to get them to learn the ways they are being manipulated is futility at its finest. None are so blind….

@Montefrio, that, new friend, is the question of the century.

Accept that you can’t change others, you can only change yourself and show others what you did and then hope/pray that they can find the mental and spiritual strength to do the same.

I used to have a deep-seated belief that this mess was “fixable,” that people would not stand idly by and watch Auschwitz 2.0., or Nagasaki 2.0 happen again. By 2009 that belief was waning. Now it is all but gone.

So, I guess, I can point out lies and fallacies to those that ask, I can lead those that want led to sites like this, I can vote against the things they let me vote on, and I can make sure my children are both able to care for themselves and their own families, while seeing through the lies and death that is raining down from every which way.

Past that? Not much. Well, except praying to God to open more eyes to the truth and protect my family if that is his will.

You have anything better? I’m always open to new ideas.

@Thinker, you did see that it was an April Fool’s “joke.”

But it isn’t really funny as it contained a lot of REAL legislation that is/has been considered.

The day is coming, wonder what is going to happen to people like me who’s body’s refuse to show the blood markers they require?

Thanks to faulty vaccines administered in my youth, I am unable to show the “markers” for measles and chicken pox, a couple others too.

Everytime they test my blood (used to be annually, not in a long time now), they would come into my room with a handful of syringes.

“What in the hell are those FOR?”
“You aren’t protected from….. ”
“I had that shot a couple years ago AND I had the illness as a child.”
“Your blood doesn’t show that.”

I let them re-vaccinate me a few times. Until I figured out I was back in the office for other illnesses within 30 days of EVERY shot, AND I still wasn’t “protected.”

We have made our medical industrial complex our new God. No doubting their words, no doubting their advice, and when it kills someone you love, well, hell, that was there weak self-control.

The CDC admits that medical care is becoming our number one killer.

And yet we still believe enough to mandate it for all.