angry walrusjew andrew makes "fake the straight" for trannys campaign
xenutologists promote finger in the butt fappenings
jewfagham has identity crises
"complex frauds"
4237 88007
biggest loser tranny does interview for fake jew news
xenutologist fakes teh ghey
>Daniel
<<homo rage quiting salad tosser whom expressed biblical co-morbid unrequited homo earlier insists on forgiveness
>Tell Satan AND HIS.
<blamefags to concernfags to sympathyfag
>You have had enough.
<scapegoat got away
>Daniel
<<homo rage quiting salad tosser whom expressed biblical co-morbid unrequited homo earlier insists on forgiveness
bacon symbols
>Daniel
<<homo rage quiting salad tosser whom expressed biblical co-morbid unrequited homo earlier insists on forgiveness
apophenia is not aposiopesis
Apophasis (/ษหpษfษsษชs/; Greek: แผฯฯฯฮฑฯฮนฯ from แผฯฯฯฮทฮผฮน apophemi,[1] "to say no")[2] is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up.[3] Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony.
The device is also called paralipsis (ฯฮฑฯฮฌฮปฮตฮนฯฮนฯ) โ also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis โ or occupatio,[4][5][6][7] and known also as praeteritio, preterition, or parasiopesis (ฯฮฑฯฮฑฯฮนฯฯฮทฯฮนฯ).
>Apophasis
It can be employed to raise an ad hominem or otherwise controversial attack while disclaiming responsibility for it, as in, "I refuse to discuss the rumor that my opponent is a drunk." This can make it a favored tactic in politics.
Apophasis can be used passive-aggressively, as in, "I forgive you for your jealousy, so I won't even mention what a betrayal it was."
In Cicero's "Pro Caelio" speech, he says to a prosecutor, "Obliviscor iam iniurias tuas, Clodia, depono memoriam doloris mei" ("I now forget your wrongs, Clodia, I set aside the memory of my pain [that you caused].")[8]
Apophasis can be used to discuss a taboo subject, as in, "We are all fully loyal to the emperor, so we wouldn't dare to claim that his new clothes are a transparent hoax."
>Apophasis
>Apophasis
As a rhetorical device, it can serve various purposes, often dependent on the relationship of the speaker to the addressee and the extent of their shared knowledge. Apophasis is rarely literal; instead, it conveys meaning through implications that may depend on this context. As an example of how meaning shifts, the English phrase "needless to say" invokes shared understanding, but its actual meaning depends on whether that understanding was really shared. The speaker is alleging that it is not necessary to say something because the addressee already knows it, but is it so? If it is, it may merely emphasize a pertinent fact. If the knowledge is weighted with history, it may be an indirect way of levying an accusation ("needless to say, because you are responsible"). If the addressee does not actually already possess the knowledge, it may be a way to condescend: the speaker suspected as much but wanted to call attention to the addressee's ignorance. Conversely, it could be a sincere and polite way to share necessary information that the addressee may or may not know without implying that the addressee is ignorant.
Litotes can be used to establish ethos, or credibility, by expressing modesty or downplaying one's accomplishments to gain the audience's favor. In the book Rhetorica ad Herennium litotes is addressed as a member of The Figures of Thought known as deminutio, or understatement. It is listed in conjunction with antenantiosis and meiosis, two other forms of rhetorical deminutio.[9] For example, a very accomplished artist might say "I'm not a bad painter," and by refraining from bragging but still acknowledging his skill, the artist is seen as talented, modest, and credible.
this is like some osort of sinner olympics raceing for a DC toilet bowl symbol with coCIAne and fake taxes syllogism
and there is a Egyptian obelisk parked out front
, Francis Bacon emphasized that experimental verification of the assumptions must be carried out rigorously and cannot take syllogism itself as the best way to draw conclusions in nature.[8] Bacon proposed a more inductive approach to the observation of nature, which involves experimentation and leads to discovering and building on axioms to create a more general conclusion.[8] Yet, a full method to come to conclusions in nature is not the scope of logic or syllogism.
, Francis Bacon emphasized that experimental verification of the assumptions must be carried out rigorously and cannot take syllogism itself as the best way to draw conclusions in nature.[8] Bacon proposed a more inductive approach to the observation of nature, which involves experimentation and leads to discovering and building on axioms to create a more general conclusion.[8] Yet, a full method to come to conclusions in nature is not the scope of logic or syllogism.
>Bacon
The existential fallacy, or existential instantiation, is a formal fallacy. In the existential fallacy, one presupposes that a class has members when one is not supposed to do so; i.e., when one should not assume existential import. Not to be confused with the 'Affirming the consequent', which states "A causes B; B, therefore A".
One example would be: "Every unicorn definitely has a horn on its forehead". It does not imply that there are any unicorns at all in the world, and thus it cannot be assumed that, if the statement were true, somewhere there is a unicorn in the world (with a horn on its forehead). The statement, if assumed true, implies only that if there were any unicorns, each would definitely have a horn on its forehead.
>Bacon
The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved (German: Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier syllogistischen Figuren erwiesen) is an essay published by Immanuel Kant in 1762.
>>Bacon
>The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved (German: Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier syllogistischen Figuren erwiesen) is an essay published by Immanuel Kant in 1762.
Kant declared that the primary, universal rule of all affirmative ratiocination is: A predicate of a predicate is a predicate of the subject (grammar).
The primary, universal rule of all negative ratiocination is: Whatever is inconsistent with the predicate of a subject is inconsistent with the subject.
Because proof is possible only through ratiocination, these rules can't be proved. Such a proof would assume the truth of these rules and would therefore be circular. However, it can be shown that these rules are the primary, universal rules of all ratiocination. This can be done by showing that other rules, that were thought to be primary, are based on these rules.
>>>Bacon
In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement that is only true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.
>>>>Bacon
>In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement that is only true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.
Vacuous truth most commonly appears in classical logic with two truth values. However, vacuous truth can also appear in, for example, intuitionistic logic, in the same situations as given above. Indeed, if {\displaystyle P}P is false, then {\displaystyle P\Rightarrow Q}P\Rightarrow Q will yield vacuous truth in any logic that uses the material conditional; if {\displaystyle P}P is a necessary falsehood, then it will also yield vacuous truth under the strict conditional.