OCTAVE: Whatever. You are in no position to cast aspersions or lecture anyone, particularly on this topic.
LECTURE
Aristotle [Ch. 3. Sophistical Refutations]: First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five in number, refutation, FALLACY, paradox, solecism, and fi…
OCTAVE: Whatever. You are in no position to cast aspersions or lecture anyone, particularly on this topic.
LECTURE
Aristotle [Ch. 3. Sophistical Refutations]: First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five in number, refutation, FALLACY, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce the opponent in the discussion to babbling-i.e. to constrain him TO REPEAT HIMSELF a number of times: or it is to produce the appearance of each of these things without the reality. For they choose if possible plainly to refute the other party, or as the second best to show that he is committing some FALLACY, or as a third best to lead him into paradox, or fourthly to reduce him to solecism, i.e. to make the answerer, in consequence of the argument, to use an ungrammatical expression; or, as a last resort, to MAKE HIM REPEAT HIMSELF.
OCTAVE: I can't be bothered with your nonsense. Write an essay, as I ADVISED YOU BEFORE.
COMMENT: The little blue Octavious Amoeba repeats himself, thereby demonstrating another thesis of Aristotle, in addition to his previous fallacies.
ADVICE: Never do what a "woke" idiot tells you to do. Never apologize to a woke idiot --- "idiot" (self-centred narcissistic being) as distinct from and contrary of/to a "patriot" (neighbor centred social being).
OCTAVE: You have no idea what "woke" even is, clearly.
REPLY: Derrick Bell was a civil rights lawyer and, eventually, the first tenured black law professor at Harvard University. After helping desegregate about 300 Mississippi schools and working tirelessly for black civil rights throughout the Martin Luther King Jr. 60s and into the 1970-es he decided/concluded that
BELL: "... racism is so deeply rooted in the makeup of American society that it has been able to reassert itself after each successive wave of reform aimed at eliminating it."
Just simply replace "racism" above with the word "crime". That works too, if one is a pessimist. Do it again with "sexism". Do it again with homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, ageism, fascism, naziism, communism, white supremacy, black power etc. etc. --- any "ism" what-so-ever. Woke is simply pessimistic name calling. Or if you ask the dogmatically inspired DEIsts:- Woke is advocacy for social justice and the rights of every oppressed category above cited.
In short and in sum:- "Woke" is class struggle Marxism, with more categories and classes than stupid Karl Marx's bourgeois-capitalists oppressing/exploiting proletarian-workers. Now it is White-Capitalist-Patriarchal-Supremacist-Males exploiting/oppressing BIPOC-socialist-anarchical-Oppressed-alphabet-gendered-goofs. That's all it is, little amoeba. It's name calling in order to get rid of people you don't like. It's the first fallacy mentioned by Aristotle before he got to Ch. 3 of The Sophistical Refutations, quoted above. The fallacy that "turns upon names alone" --- the most dull-witted fallacy for the dullest people in the history of the world ---- AMERICANS!
When Americans actually knew Aristotle, they became the greatest people and the greatest country in the world because Charles Carroll of Carrolton was the leading Roman Catholic scholar among the American Constitutionalists. He taught his colonial buddies to draft the American Constitution straight out of Book IV, Chapters 14 through 16 of Aristotle's Politics. Carroll was a Jesuit trained American scholar, when Aristotle was the only "philosopher" taught as a philosopher by the Jesuits and Thomas Aquinas (an Aristotelian) was the most important of (maybe?) 3 theologians taught by the Jesuits.
OCTAVE: And if you are a such a genius, why is your grammar so lousy?
REBUTTAL: The above is a "loaded hypothesis" fallacy. There are only 2 ways to argue logically from a hypothesis. You may affirm the antecedent proposition of any hypothesis in the 2nd (or minor) premise of a hypothetical syllogism. Incidentally the hypothesis, itself, is the major premise of a hypothetical syllogism. When one affirms the antecedent proposition of the hypothesis in the minor premise, then it is logically warranted to conclude the hypothetical syllogism with the consequent proposition of the hypothesis. The second logical way to argue from a hypothesis is to deny the consequent proposition of the hypothesis, after stating the hypothesis and then one is logically warranted to deny the antecedent proposition of the hypothesis in the conclusion of a hypothetical syllogism. But when one sticks a question (interrogative proposition) into the consequent proposition of a "loaded hypothesis", then one cannot logically deny the question. Thus the hypothesis becomes as "loaded" as the proverbial loaded question Q. "Have you stopped beating your significant-other yet?" If you answer yes, then you were a criminal. If you answer no, then you are still a criminal. Ergo "loaded question".
This is the actual "loaded hypothesis" of Octave, without the interrogative proposition in the consequent position of the hypothesis:-
IF you are such a genius THEN your grammar is lousy [hypothesis]
KB is a genius [Affirms antecedent]
Therefore his grammar is lousy! [Warranted conclusion; modus ponens] --- or ---
IF you are such a genius THEN your grammar is lousy [hypothesis]
KB's grammar is NOT lousy [denies consequent]
KB is NOT a genius. [Warranted conclusion; modus tollens]
In the end the little blue amoeba apparently "thinks" that geniuses are bad grammarians or that good grammarians cannot be geniuses. As to why denying antecedents and affirming consequents of hypotheses are fallacies, that is probably too far over an amoeba's little blue head.
OCTAVE: Are you a good candidate for MAID?
REPLY: That's the true "woke" Marxist spirit, kid. Kill your critics!
OCTAVE: It might appear so.
REBUTTAL: Only to "woke" little amoebas, such as you, Octavius-Killer.
And remember folks on this list. This little amoeba says that he is "on your side"! Can you imagine what the attitude of the other side actually is? It's worse than the little blue amoeba's position by far.
OCTAVE: Whatever. You are in no position to cast aspersions or lecture anyone, particularly on this topic.
LECTURE
Aristotle [Ch. 3. Sophistical Refutations]: First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five in number, refutation, FALLACY, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce the opponent in the discussion to babbling-i.e. to constrain him TO REPEAT HIMSELF a number of times: or it is to produce the appearance of each of these things without the reality. For they choose if possible plainly to refute the other party, or as the second best to show that he is committing some FALLACY, or as a third best to lead him into paradox, or fourthly to reduce him to solecism, i.e. to make the answerer, in consequence of the argument, to use an ungrammatical expression; or, as a last resort, to MAKE HIM REPEAT HIMSELF.
OCTAVE: I can't be bothered with your nonsense. Write an essay, as I ADVISED YOU BEFORE.
COMMENT: The little blue Octavious Amoeba repeats himself, thereby demonstrating another thesis of Aristotle, in addition to his previous fallacies.
ADVICE: Never do what a "woke" idiot tells you to do. Never apologize to a woke idiot --- "idiot" (self-centred narcissistic being) as distinct from and contrary of/to a "patriot" (neighbor centred social being).
OCTAVE: You have no idea what "woke" even is, clearly.
REPLY: Derrick Bell was a civil rights lawyer and, eventually, the first tenured black law professor at Harvard University. After helping desegregate about 300 Mississippi schools and working tirelessly for black civil rights throughout the Martin Luther King Jr. 60s and into the 1970-es he decided/concluded that
BELL: "... racism is so deeply rooted in the makeup of American society that it has been able to reassert itself after each successive wave of reform aimed at eliminating it."
Just simply replace "racism" above with the word "crime". That works too, if one is a pessimist. Do it again with "sexism". Do it again with homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, ageism, fascism, naziism, communism, white supremacy, black power etc. etc. --- any "ism" what-so-ever. Woke is simply pessimistic name calling. Or if you ask the dogmatically inspired DEIsts:- Woke is advocacy for social justice and the rights of every oppressed category above cited.
In short and in sum:- "Woke" is class struggle Marxism, with more categories and classes than stupid Karl Marx's bourgeois-capitalists oppressing/exploiting proletarian-workers. Now it is White-Capitalist-Patriarchal-Supremacist-Males exploiting/oppressing BIPOC-socialist-anarchical-Oppressed-alphabet-gendered-goofs. That's all it is, little amoeba. It's name calling in order to get rid of people you don't like. It's the first fallacy mentioned by Aristotle before he got to Ch. 3 of The Sophistical Refutations, quoted above. The fallacy that "turns upon names alone" --- the most dull-witted fallacy for the dullest people in the history of the world ---- AMERICANS!
When Americans actually knew Aristotle, they became the greatest people and the greatest country in the world because Charles Carroll of Carrolton was the leading Roman Catholic scholar among the American Constitutionalists. He taught his colonial buddies to draft the American Constitution straight out of Book IV, Chapters 14 through 16 of Aristotle's Politics. Carroll was a Jesuit trained American scholar, when Aristotle was the only "philosopher" taught as a philosopher by the Jesuits and Thomas Aquinas (an Aristotelian) was the most important of (maybe?) 3 theologians taught by the Jesuits.
OCTAVE: And if you are a such a genius, why is your grammar so lousy?
REBUTTAL: The above is a "loaded hypothesis" fallacy. There are only 2 ways to argue logically from a hypothesis. You may affirm the antecedent proposition of any hypothesis in the 2nd (or minor) premise of a hypothetical syllogism. Incidentally the hypothesis, itself, is the major premise of a hypothetical syllogism. When one affirms the antecedent proposition of the hypothesis in the minor premise, then it is logically warranted to conclude the hypothetical syllogism with the consequent proposition of the hypothesis. The second logical way to argue from a hypothesis is to deny the consequent proposition of the hypothesis, after stating the hypothesis and then one is logically warranted to deny the antecedent proposition of the hypothesis in the conclusion of a hypothetical syllogism. But when one sticks a question (interrogative proposition) into the consequent proposition of a "loaded hypothesis", then one cannot logically deny the question. Thus the hypothesis becomes as "loaded" as the proverbial loaded question Q. "Have you stopped beating your significant-other yet?" If you answer yes, then you were a criminal. If you answer no, then you are still a criminal. Ergo "loaded question".
This is the actual "loaded hypothesis" of Octave, without the interrogative proposition in the consequent position of the hypothesis:-
IF you are such a genius THEN your grammar is lousy [hypothesis]
KB is a genius [Affirms antecedent]
Therefore his grammar is lousy! [Warranted conclusion; modus ponens] --- or ---
IF you are such a genius THEN your grammar is lousy [hypothesis]
KB's grammar is NOT lousy [denies consequent]
KB is NOT a genius. [Warranted conclusion; modus tollens]
In the end the little blue amoeba apparently "thinks" that geniuses are bad grammarians or that good grammarians cannot be geniuses. As to why denying antecedents and affirming consequents of hypotheses are fallacies, that is probably too far over an amoeba's little blue head.
OCTAVE: Are you a good candidate for MAID?
REPLY: That's the true "woke" Marxist spirit, kid. Kill your critics!
OCTAVE: It might appear so.
REBUTTAL: Only to "woke" little amoebas, such as you, Octavius-Killer.
And remember folks on this list. This little amoeba says that he is "on your side"! Can you imagine what the attitude of the other side actually is? It's worse than the little blue amoeba's position by far.
Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne