LOGIC. WHAT ARE DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS? PART 5.

IF WE TAKE THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE:

"TO BE A CHRISTIAN, ONE MUST ACCEPT THE DIVINE NATURE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AS BEING THE SON OF GOD." 

AS A PROPER DEFINITION FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN, WE MUST ASK THE FOLLOWING:

WHY DOES SUCH A DEFINITION AUTOMATICALLY PLACE THOSE WHO ACCEPT IT AS TRUE, INTO AN ADDITIONAL CATEGORY OF BEING "ANTI-SCIENCE?"

THE ANSWER USUALLY REVOLVES AROUND THE FOLLOWING LINE OF REASONING...

                                (REPRINTED FROM PART 4.)

... That to Accept the Divine Nature of Jesus, Means you have to BELIEVE IN THE "MIRACLES" HE PERFORMED, AS ACTUAL EVENTS.  HOWEVER, THESE VIOLATED "NATURAL LAW", SO TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF THESE EPISODES RELATED IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS TO REJECT SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The Problem with this Line of Reasoning, is the MIXING OF TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINKING, OR BELIEFS, WHICH ARE NOT COMPARABLE OR COMPATIBLE. 

FAITH BASED  -  IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF A "SUPERNATURAL REALM", THAT EXISTS APART FROM THE NATURAL WORLD AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS, BUT MAY ENTER IT AT TIMES.

SCIENCE BASED  -  EXAMINES/STUDIES, THEORIZES AND ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE AND NATURAL LAW.  ANY ASSERTIONS OR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT EVENTS, PROCESSES, AND OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA THAT OCCUR WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED THE BEST WAYS TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE REALITY AND TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING THAT EXISTS AND INTERACTS WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE NATURAL WORLD.

HOWEVER, SYSTEMS OF FAITH DO NOT WORK THIS WAY.  IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SUPERNATURAL ENTITY EXISTS APART FROM THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, BUT CAN ENTER IT AND DETERMINE OR INFLUENCE ANY PART OF IT WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS, MECHANISMS, OR RESTRICTIONS YOU ARE LEFT WITH THE FOLLOWING...

TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST ON THIS SUBJECT.

QUICK HITTERS. FOR THE PEOPLE...?

As the UNITED STATES Endures the Horror and Tragedy of another Multiple Victim Shooting Incident, Involving Individual(s) who had access to Assault Weapons, will it finally motivate Republicans into adopting stricter gun control laws? Probably not. Let's face it, if the slaughter of small children at SANDY HOOK COULDN'T MOVE THEM INTO ACTION, WHY DO YOU THINK THE MASSACRE OF HELPLESS INDIVIDUALS IN LAS VEGAS WOULD LEAD TO CHANGE?

In the past, the NRA AND THEIR CRONIES* IN GOVERNMENT HAVE REFUSED TO ENACT LAWS MANDATING BACKGROUND CHECKS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CRIMINAL AND MENTAL HEALTH GUIDELINES. In addition, RESTRICTING ASSAULT WEAPONS TO THE MILITARY AND POLICE FORCES,(Who actually REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE YOU ARE HANDED A FIREARM, LET ALONE ONE THAT CAN CAUSE DOZENS OF CASUALTIES IN A FEW MINUTES), SEEMS TO BE A CONCEPT THEY HAVE TROUBLE GRASPING.

(* By Cronies I am referring mainly to Republicans)

Knowing what we do about INVALIDLY ELECTED PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION, CAN WE EXPECT LOGIC AND REASON TO FINALLY MOTIVATE THOSE WHO OPPOSE ANY FORM OF GUN CONTROL TO CHANGE?  

I have already written about the CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, and will do so again in the future. However, LOGIC AND REASON IS NOT THEIR STRONG SUIT, SO REPUBLICANS USE DIFFERENT MESSAGES TO IGNORE, AVOID, AND CONFUSE THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVATIONS FOR DOING NOTHING.

Before I answer that, consider the following, WHICH SHOULD REMIND YOU OF THE MENTALITY, WORLD VIEW, AND PRIORITIES OF THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS                                      REPUBLICANS.

            SUPPORT.

                                                                                        

                                                                                         

-  UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.                                         OPPOSE ALL

-  RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.                                           OF

-  LEGALIZING SAME- SEX MARRIAGE.                              THESE.

-  RESTRICTIONS AND DISCLOSURE LAWS,                       

   ON CONTROLLING  CAMPAIGN SPENDING.

-  PROVIDING SANCTUARY FOR WAR REFUGEES 

   FROM SYRIA.

-  STRICT OVERSITE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

...AND, OF COURSE, COMPREHENSIVE GUN CONTROL

   LAWS.

                                                   FOR THE PEOPLE...?

Now, add Donald Trump to the mix.  WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?  HOW DOES THE OPPOSITION INTIMIDATE A "PRESIDENT" WHO ATTAINED OFFICE THROUGH A SHAM ELECTION, THAT THEY DIDN'T CONTEST?

WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM- WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU ON T.V. PT 2.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time in Court, be it Civil or Criminal, can say one thing with certainty;  The Majority of time a Courtroom in session is a boring and tedious venue, that most people outside the practice of law would find hard to comprehend.

Naturally, this does not translate well for attracting viewers to programs offered on Network or Cable Television, that focus on Trials currently being adjudicated.  The Answer?  Bring in Personable Hosts that "Mediate" debates conducted with "Special Guests" brought in to lend their expertise about the proceedings being broadcast over the air.  Since a Courtroom in session spends a great deal of time upon matters of proper procedure, which involves only the Attorneys and Presiding Judge, these interactions between Host and Guests must engage the viewer enough to prevent them from changing the Channel.

So, what do they choose to discuss, this panel of experts?  Many times it is the Conduct and Manner of the Counsel representing both sides.  Since most these shows focus on Criminal proceedings, it leads us to the next point;

- THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ADVOCACY BASED, OR, "MAY THE BEST LAWYER WIN."  TRUTH, JUSTICE AND EXPEDIENCY ARE PREFERRED, BUT NOT NECESSARY.

When you listen to the commentary from the Host and Guests, you may notice that the criticisms seem to be less about the Law, and more about such things as Physical Appearance, Courtroom Behavior and the Ability to capture and hold the attention of the Judge, Jury and the attending Media.

This mirrors a concept that many Americans refuse to accept or acknowledge; ENTERTAINMENT OFTEN TRUMPS INTELLECT. 

Look for PT 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE SOCIOPATH- A DANGER ALL AROUND US. PT 19.

As I said in part 18, the FAILED SOCIOPATH is the Easiest to Identify, but those who are in Crisis and Vulnerable may not see Their TRUE NATURE UNTIL IT IS TO LATE.

By To Late, I mean Allowing  the Failed Sociopath Access to Intimate Parts of Their Lives.  It could be Financial, Social, Sexual, or the Most Personal and Devastating Category: FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

In Many of These Cases, perhaps even the Majority, it is others who see the Danger First, seeing this New Part of Someones Life for what they really are; AMORAL OPPORTUNISTS WHO SENSE WEAKNESS AND VULNERABILITY MOVING INTO THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ATTEMPTING TO CONTROL THIS NEW VICTIM SO THEY CAN GAIN THE FINANCIAL, EMOTIONAL OR SPIRITUAL UPPER- HAND.

Unfortunately,  Although the Failed Sociopath is Fairly Easy to spot, especially if your the One in the Relationship, IT TAKES INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL DISCIPLINE TO ADMIT THAT YOUR BEING VICTIMIZED.  This is Something Many are Unwilling to Consider, at Least in the Beginning.

Nobody likes to Admit They have been Fooled.  It is even more TRAUMATIC WHEN IT IS SOMEONE THE VICTIM THOUGHT CARED ABOUT THEM, EVEN TO THE POINT OF CREATING A FACADE OF LOVE AND DEVOTION.

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1)  BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, AND SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BE.

Nothing can Really be Accomplished in Removing the SOCIOPATH FROM YOUR LIFE, IF YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. The Failed Sociopath, or for that Matter any Category of Sociopath, Counts on Wishful Thinking and the Fear of Public Exposure about the Truth of the Relationship, to Work in Their Behavior.

Perhaps the First Test in Measuring the Odds that you are Dealing with a Sociopath, Particularly if it is Close  Personal Relationship, should be something like the following:

REVERSE THE ROLES, AND ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION;  IF I TREATED THIS PERSON IN AN IDENTICAL MANNER, WOULD I CONSIDER MY BEHAVIOR APPROPRIATE?  FURTHER, WOULD I EXPECT THIS PERSON TO STAY WITH ME, OR PERMANENTLY LEAVE THE RELATIONSHIP?

In other Words, if you wouldn't Treat Someone in such a HEINOUS MANNER, why would you allow them to GET AWAY WITH SUCH BEHAVIOR BEING DIRECTED AT YOU?