https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
these bullys think it is called cronyism
on your own time
compare and contrast these terms
Hypophora, Straw Man, Apophasis
the entitlements of fake jews sound like emotivisms to me
Emotivism reached prominence in the early 20th century, but it was born centuries earlier. In 1710, George Berkeley wrote that language in general often serves to inspire feelings as well as communicate ideas.[7] Decades later, David Hume espoused ideas similar to Stevenson's later ones.[8] In his 1751 book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hume considered morality to be related to fact but "determined by sentiment":
In moral deliberations we must be acquainted beforehand with all the objects, and all their relations to each other; and from a comparison of the whole, fix our choice or approbation. … While we are ignorant whether a man were aggressor or not, how can we determine whether the person who killed him be criminal or innocent? But after every circumstance, every relation is known, the understanding has no further room to operate, nor any object on which it could employ itself. The approbation or blame which then ensues, cannot be the work of the judgement, but of the heart; and is not a speculative proposition or affirmation, but an active feeling or sentiment.[9]
G. E. Moore published his Principia Ethica in 1903 and argued that the attempts of ethical naturalists to translate ethical terms (like good and bad) into non-ethical ones (like pleasing and displeasing) committed the "naturalistic fallacy". Moore was a cognitivist, but his case against ethical naturalism steered other philosophers toward noncognitivism, particularly emotivism.[10]
The emergence of logical positivism and its verifiability criterion of meaning early in the 20th century led some philosophers to conclude that ethical statements, being incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless. This criterion was fundamental to A.J. Ayer's defense of positivism in Language, Truth and Logic, which contains his statement of emotivism. However, positivism is not essential to emotivism itself, perhaps not even in Ayer's form,[11] and some positivists in the Vienna Circle, which had great influence on Ayer, held non-emotivist views.[12]
R. M. Hare unfolded his ethical theory of universal prescriptivism in 1952's The Language of Morals, intending to defend the importance of rational moral argumentation against the "propaganda" he saw encouraged by Stevenson, who thought moral argumentation was sometimes psychological and not rational.[13] But Hare's disagreement was not universal, and the similarities between his noncognitive theory and the emotive one — especially his claim, and Stevenson's, that moral judgments contain commands and are thus not purely descriptive — caused some to regard him as an emotivist, a classification he denied:
I did, and do, follow the emotivists in their rejection of descriptivism. But I was never an emotivist, though I have often been called one. But unlike most of their opponents I saw that it was their irrationalism, not their non-descriptivism, which was mistaken. So my main task was to find a rationalist kind of non-descriptivism, and this led me to establish that imperatives, the simplest kinds of prescriptions, could be subject to logical constraints while not [being] descriptive.[14]
A. J. Ayer's version of emotivism is given in chapter six, "Critique of Ethics and Theology", of Language, Truth and Logic. In that chapter, Ayer divides "the ordinary system of ethics" into four classes:
"Propositions that express definitions of ethical terms, or judgements about the legitimacy or possibility of certain definitions"
"Propositions describing the phenomena of moral experience, and their causes"
"Exhortations to moral virtue"
"Actual ethical judgments"[16]
He focuses on propositions of the first class—moral judgments—saying that those of the second class belong to science, those of the third are mere commands, and those of the fourth (which are considered in normative ethics as opposed to meta-ethics) are too concrete for ethical philosophy. While class three statements were irrelevant to Ayer's brand of emotivism, they would later play a significant role in Stevenson's.
Ayer argues that moral judgments cannot be translated into non-ethical, empirical terms and thus cannot be verified; in this he agrees with ethical intuitionists. But he differs from intuitionists by discarding appeals to intuition as "worthless" for determining moral truths,[17] since the intuition of one person often contradicts that of another. Instead, Ayer concludes that ethical concepts are "mere pseudo-concepts":
The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money." In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. … If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence that has no factual meaning—that is, expresses no proposition that can be either true or false. … I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments.[18]
Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence
apeals to force in latin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
wanna learn the latin roots of cia techniques of bullshit
A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection.
A simple example is "the rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise."
this legal term has no appl;ication in a us18rice case of rplerbican pedoraptors that worked with the clintons to get frumpos fronthole in office for the double oval
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.
great song and video
but the fake jews jootube adtrackers will bug the shit out of chan time
why did those mercedes fehgels but so much dharma into freaking out about plane crashes???
if you're a cuck and tapping networks for an edge in this debate
i have no pitty for your choices
mueller got those safes of israeli exstacy through kirkland for the witness protection program in the late ninties
great, show me them black eyes than faggot
"keystone" was some fake shit sold to the roths
like anitmatter
technically it is fake jew research, since they seem to be the most culpable in this antisemite gambit imported with paperclip
dude looks like a lady
frumpo was chosen to take a dive like a fucking nigger for the fucking republic of pedoraptors after the cia cocaine snafus in the eighties
without envy
it is just a long drawn out eulogy of swine
and carcass in polyester
<ebot is not jewish nor is affiliated with a temple>
lord of the kid rapists
the eye of sauron
it is called "getting your goat"
race horses get lonely and don;t run well
so they get a goat friend
steal the goat and the horse doesn;t run well
seriously, if ya'll sinners wanna come by a picnic table and settle it over a ball peen hammer under a tree,,,, cthullu already lined one up
oh no the illuminatti is spreading it's symbols in your bedroom thoughts
i gotta go get some stanky danky delicious marijuana to put up with these pedoraptors still posting with their cia space ham tech