Hitler's Personality
This is a study that the university of cornell had done on the analysis of the personality of Adolph Hitler.
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/
This is the course weblog for my section of PSCI 105 (Critical Thinking About Politics) at Western Michigan University.
This is a study that the university of cornell had done on the analysis of the personality of Adolph Hitler.
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/
International gay leaders are planning a 10-day WorldPride festival and parade in Jerusalem in August, saying they want to make a statement about tolerance and diversity in the Holy City, home to three great religious traditions.
Now, major leaders of the three faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - are making a rare show of unity to try to stop the festival. They say the event would desecrate the city and convey the erroneous impression that homosexuality is acceptable.
What do you guys think?
The Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 assignment:
If the goal of the film (or "public discourse" in general) is to engage in dialogue — that both respects the other side and (potentially) leads to changing people's minds — is the film successful?
You will probably have to see this a couple times. Let me know what you think, just sit back watch and listen.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#main
-----
MIGUEL'S EDIT: Popular Mechanics recently ran a cover story debunking several 9/11 "myths". Here is their online version. The section dealing specifically w/ the above claim is here.
Just to be perfectly clear: the claim that it was NOT a Boeing that hit the Pentagon is FALSE. Just because it's on the internet, does not make it true. This is a conspiracy theory hoax, or worse. It is NOT TRUE. See the Popular Mechanics debunking of the claim for more info, or do some further research.
I'm sure most people have probably noticed that Pat Buchanan is coming to campus this Thursday, March 31st as evidenced by the plethora of flyers around. I was thinking this would be a good opportunity to observe some logical fallacies, (regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum) because judging from his articles on his website, he definitely uses them in his arguments. Anyway, he is speaking Thursday, March 31, at 7 p.m. in the East Ballroom of the Bernhard Center; (the event is free). Also, if anyone wants to check out some of his writings beforehand, his website is www.theamericancause.org
The United States rejected the Kyoto treaty, an international pledge to cut carbon emissions that went into effect last month, because the quotas assigned to the country were "unreasonable," a government official said. Instead, the United States government plans to focus on technology, he added. What do you guys think?
You are in a room with 2 men, 1 of whom always lies, and the other always tells truth. One of them has a diamond. You don't know which tells the truth or lies, or which has the diamond. What 1 question can you ask 1 of the men to be sure of which has the diamond?
Read this link http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw113375_20050323.htm
We need to stop Canada from bringing their trash in!
What do you think?
Due to the length of the article I'm linking to, I'll keep my comments short. Read this article first.
Aftergood makes several good points. One is that there comes a point where the governement begins to protect its citizens from spooks and spectres. The fact is that some of the documents that have been reclassified were done so for good reason. I personally don't want a terrorist having access to the space shuttle's launch timetable. It scares me sometimes what has been released to the general public.
However, removing common data such as aeronautical maps, historical recods, and telephone directories, seems only to frustrate those citizens the governement claims to be protecting. This country seems to be reaching a state of paranoia unparalleled since Joe McCarty was conducting "interviews."
Do I think that everyone should have locational access to anything America has orbiting this planet? No. But I do believe that there is a point when we begin to hinder progress in the name of "safety and security."
In a move designed to squash civil liberties, ignore checks and balances, and circumvent the justice system, the United States Congress has decided to rule on the outcome of a court case in Florida.
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, on the decision of a Florida state court, was removed on Friday. This came after a prolonged court battle between Terri's husband, who wanted to remove the tube, and her parents, who did not.
Sunday morning the Senate ruled unanimously to take this legally decided case out of Florida's hands and give it to a federal court for review. House Democrats however were able to temporarily block a vote until Monday. For once, thank God for the Democrats. Does the Republican party realize that this bill, applicable only to Terri Schiavo's case, spits on an over 200 year old system specifically designed to keep one govermental body from attaining too much power.
Let's look at it from opposing viewpoints. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi says, "Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts." An insightful observation. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay argues, "What will it hurt to have a federal judge take a fresh look at all this evidence and apply it against 15 years worth of advances in medical technology?" Well, how about states rights, the right to a fair trial, and personal liberties, such as the right to die in peace. The American people elected a Republican Congress and gained a moral dictatorship. As Congressman DeLay puts it, "The legal issues, I grant you, are complicated, but the moral ones are not ..." No Congressman, the legal issue here is very simple, Florida rules, you follow.
Today I am embarrassed to consider myself at all connected with the Republican party. Their moral ideals have caused them to circumvent justice and dignity for their own agenda, and that is the worst moral perversion.
Source: Congress' Rampage
Coming into this class I can honestly say I did not know what to expect from it. And although it has not come easy, learning some of these fallacies is becoming quite interesting. Actually picking logical fallacies out of someone's argument in this fisking paper assignment puts it in perspective a lot better for me. I guess its just interesting that so called political "experts", can be wrong too.
-Now if I could only do better on the quizzes-
Okay so in doing some searching on conservative blogs....I ran across www.moxie.nu and her top blog entry https://http://moxie.nu/moveabletype/archives/003301.php which was very interesting. But being a bit out of the loop I found myself having to do some extra reasearch to figure out who this 'Terry Schiavo' was. This is what I found was this a brief on the current situation http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Terry-Schiavo-righttodie-case/2005/03/21/1111253915188.html?oneclick=true and then I came across this which is the current leagal status of the bill http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=466
Like many other people I guess I am just left wondering....is this just an attempt to make a political party look good?
I don't know about anyone else but this evokes innerconflict for me.
Is anyone else disapointed that our government has decided to tear up one of our national
parks for oil?
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_2614929
I know Id rather not have oil pumps in the middle of this
http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/np.gates-artic.html
I would like to hear what people think of this bill.
Is this a good or bad legislation?
I stumbled across this article by Ann Coulter and I was wondering what everybody thinks...www.anncoulter.com It's the article on the homepage of the website--FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE! from March 16th
-----
Here's the direct link to the article: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=46 (Ed.).
I know it was stated to copy and paste the whole article into the paper, but it just looks really strange to me and takes up a lot of space. Do you want it maybe in smaller font or something to make it look different from regular text? I dont know, for some reason, it doesnt look/feel right.
I thought I'd go ahead and post this link I stumbled upon. It's pertinent because it's both an example of a Fisking, and entirely devoted to differences in kinds of evidence. Here's the link. The author clearly has a point of view, but his critique of the way newspapers handle sample bias (whether the bias is purposefully malicious, or merely accidental) is valid.
The logical fallacy examples we covered in class today are here. The quiz will have five logical fallacies, from the following list:
ad populum (aka "bandwagon" or "appeal to popularity")
straw man
slippery slope
appeal to tradition
appeal to consequences
appeal to emotions
Hey all,
I have been hearing a lot about this Ward Churchill professor from Colorado on the news. I think what he has to say is kind of interesting and very controversial. What do you guys think? This is a link to one of the many columns written about him. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2676169,00.html
I was reading an article about this lawsuit that was filed against the publisher of "Hit Man" and realized how that suit got its way into the judicial system. Now the claim is that the book was an incitement to commit murder, since someone was convicted of killing three people following the exact 22 steps asserted in that book. On the other hand, there is the debate surrounding the first amendment and the freedom of speech; someone may say or write what they please, and are still presumably protected under the law. However, the supreme court cited that "this suit proceeds to trial, signifying the book was one step ahead of an instruction, or entertainment. It was a disguised weapon in the hands of a murderer. Although it did not specifically advice of wrong doing or killing, but within its despicable statements and dreadful ideas, carried the motivation and detailed instruction on how to kill, in addition to seeking relief after the crime. So what do you guys think and where do you stand from this dilemma?
Due to people having a hard time finding "Fiskable" articles, I've changed the paper assignment to give you another option:
Find a GOOD argument, and take it appart in the same way, but showing me why this is, indeed, a good argument. Post a comment here if you have any questions about this.
For those of you who are interested in environmental issues...you might like this site.
http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/
OK, so I realize that we've discussed the paper in class. We've talked about the paper itself, the fisking aspect, blogs...ect. Miguel even posted examples of fisking on the website. Of course we've been learning the logical fallacies to boot. Here is my dilema: I've been doing endless searching through tons of sites looking at blogs of all kinds, even dipping into transcripts of speeches and shows. I can't seen to find anything that I look at and think "hey I can fisk that." Is anybody else having these issues and or have they over come them??? I'll take any advice one has to give. Thanks!
I was wondering if there was another name for the "poisoning the well" fallacy I am having a hard time finding it in the book. Can anyone help!!
Here's the much-requested "word bank" or list of fallacies covered so far in class. There are only a dozen: