About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

POST # 28. WHAT MOTIVATES MOST PEOPLE? IS IT NOTORIETY AT ANY COST? PT 3.

Cinema, Theatre, Tv, Camera













You really have to wonder what goes on inside the mind
of someone who deliberately sets up Themselves, Family, and
Friends to be the Object of Scorn and Ridicule.  Is Fame so 
Important, that Attaining it in any Manner is a Worthwhile Life
Choice?

Well, in some cases, it seems so.  Why?  Because the Foolish,
Vain, Egotistical, Ill- Informed, Selfish, Irrational and Prejudiced are
Often Celebrated and Rewarded in our Society, with Financial Benefits
that encourage others to follow the same path.  In Fact, some of Them run
for Political Office, and Win.  

This is the State of much of the Programming we see in the Visual Medium, 
often Cloaked under the Guide as being News Worthy.

Time and Time again we Hear these "Media Darlings" Spew outright
Garbage into a Microphone, giving Their Opinions on Medicine, Politics,
Social Programs, Science and so on...

Guess What? This may be difficult for some to understand, but Media 
Exposure and Availability does NOT MAKE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY 
ANY MORE REASONABLE OR INTELLIGENT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE
GIVES THEM AIR TIME.

However, the Biggest Tragedy is that the Message or Opinion is Allowed to 
Stand by the Hosts or Producers, without any Dissension from someone 
who Actually knows what Their Talking About.

(NO I AM NOT GOING TO LIST THE NAMES OF "CELEBRITIES,"
THEIR FAMILIES, PEOPLE FAMOUS FOR DUBIOUS OR NONSENSICAL
ACHIEVEMENTS, TALK SHOW DARLINGS etc. If you want to find Them,
I'm not going to help. Research Forces Me to View Samples of this Mindless
Drivel, which is Almost Painful to Watch.)

Date-  5/5/2015.

Scroll down for future posts.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. ORGANIZED CRIME- WHAT IS IT, AND CAN IT BE STOPPED? PT 1.

Image result for PUBLIC DOMAIN PICTURES- LUCKY LUCIANO


When you hear the Words "ORGANIZED CRIME", what comes to Mind?  Is it;

-  Drug Dealers Ruling Neighborhood Streets?

-  Memories of the "GODFATHER" MOVIES?

-  Bank Robbers like John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Baby Face Nelson?

-  Terrorists Targeting Innocent People, to Create Fear and Mistrust?

... OR MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE.


Why did I ask this Question at the Very Beginning?  Because,  it is something that has caused a great deal of Controversy over the Years.  Politicians, Police Officials, Attorneys and the Court Systems etc., have argued over the Proper Definition for Decades.  In Other Words:

-  Does "Organized" Mean a Structured Chain of Command, with a Given Set of Rules and Regulations that are Enforced by the Leadership?

-  Is it a "Members" only Club, where outsiders are just Tools that can be Discarded at any Time?

-  Must it have a Purpose for its Existence, with everything Directed Towards a Specific Goal?

-  Does Race and Ethnicity play any role in Designating a Particular Group as an Established Organization Brought Together for Illegal Purposes?

-  Generally Speaking, Terms that Denote a Collection of Individuals as a "Gang", are Differentiated from Others Tagged as "Organized Crime."  I will explain the Reasons in a Future Post.


Of Course, Fighting Organized Criminal Elements through the Criminal Justice System is a Much Different Task than it is with other Forms of Illegal Activity.  As we look at the History of Organized Crime, the Level of Sophistication that is often Achieved makes Arrests and Prosecution more difficult.  This is Especially True if we consider the Amount of Corruption that has been Introduced into Established Legal Authority.

So How are we to Define "Organized Crime." Look for Part 2. 

LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 1.



Sheldon Cooper PhD.png

You Have Probably Heard These Terms Used Many Times.
Perhaps it was the Classroom, Job Site, or even Television/Movies.

However, were they used Correctly?  

To Introduce this Section, Let's Start with a Couple of Examples.

In a Valid Deductive Argument, if the Premises are True,
THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE.

Here is an Example of a Valid Deductive Argument;

All Politicians are Deceitful People.

All Deceitful People can't be Trusted.


Therefore, All Politicians can't Be Trusted.



Now a Valid Inductive Argument;

Most Politicians Never Tell the Truth.

Our Congressman Promises to Not Raise Taxes.


Therefore, Our Congressman will Probably Raise Taxes.


An Inductive Argument Points to the Probability of the 
Conclusion Being True, but it is not a Certainty.


IN THE NEXT POST ON THIS TOPIC, WE'LL EXAMINE SUCH
TERMS AS VALID/INVALID, WHICH INDICATE IF THE ARGUMENT 
IS LAID OUT, OR CONSTRUCTED CORRECTLY.  THAT, AND WHY 
EXAMINING THE TRUTH OF THE PREMISES IS THE KEY TO 
EVALUATING THE STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS OF EACH ARGUMENT.

Date-  7/8/2015.

LOGIC. THE FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE. PT 2.


Chess, Pawn, King, Game, Tournament

Basically,  THE FALLACY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE IS THE RESULT OF THOSE WHO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT PROPER REASONING SKILLS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE USED ONLY WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT, AND BACK UP THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE.

THEY MUST BE USED CONSISTENTLY, AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

However, Many of those who find Themselves on the Losing End of a Debate, Discussion, or Argument, Resort to the Following:

When the Rules of LOGIC, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND CRITICAL THINKING NO LONGER WORK IN YOUR FAVOR, AND THE OPPOSITION HAS MADE YOUR OPINION, CONCLUSION OR JUDGMENT INTO AN IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE POSITION TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, YOU ABANDON THEM, AND SOMETIMES THE RESULT IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

"MAYBE I CAN'T SHOW OR PROVE THAT MY CONCLUSION IS TRUE, OR EVEN REALISTIC, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. THERE COULD BE EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, WHICH WOULD PROVE THAT WHAT I AM ASSERTING IS TRUE."

HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH ELEMENTS OF THE MENTAL PROCESS THAT LEADS TO, AND ARE ESSENTIAL FOR, THE ABILITY TO USE AND UNDERSTAND VALID REASONING SKILLS.  IT IS AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION.
(These do not Include Arguments of Faith, Which by Their Very Nature, are Purely Subjective. These Beliefs are not Required to Meet the Standards of Proper Reasoning and Analysis, Unless They are being Used to Explain Events Occurring in the Physical or Natural World.)