Comments on: Canada scandal: how does Minister of Defence still have a job? https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/ NoMoreFakeNews.com Mon, 10 Jul 2017 06:38:12 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.10 By: CPP https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32978 Mon, 10 Jul 2017 06:38:12 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32978 Harjit Sajjan is Sikh, a religious group from India, not Muslim. Wearing a turban all the time like that as a religious obligation for men is a Sikh practice, not a Muslim one.

]]>
By: andycandydandy https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32977 Sun, 09 Jul 2017 05:21:28 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32977 Hi jon:he is lying because in the muslim religion,its venerating your god to lie to infidels.look it up yourself.

]]>
By: CPP https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32976 Sat, 08 Jul 2017 05:27:15 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32976 What you quoted from the article is not an example of inductive reasoning. It is a description of a type and then a declaration that most politicians fit this type based on observing them in general. It was not the selection of a few politicians who fit a type and the induction from this that all (or most) politicians are of that type.

Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004839319502500101

]]>
By: honestliberty https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32975 Sat, 08 Jul 2017 02:48:00 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32975 Quebec, whomever you may be:

I appreciate many of your perspectives, but I disagree with your ad hominem attacks. I fail to see how it adds to the discussion. Would you expand on why you believe I’m a leftist?

]]>
By: honestliberty https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32974 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:14:38 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32974 ah, what the hell. I’ll run it past my wife once you’re already moved in.
that seems to have worked well in the past 🙂

]]>
By: Michael https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32973 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 19:53:13 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32973 “Genuine students of logic would have spotted the error immediately.”

Ahhhh. A boy scout, a Popper loving boyscout.

Let me see you logic badge?

]]>
By: Greg C. https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32972 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 14:12:24 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32972 The main sticking point seems to be the sale of arms to the Saudis – but perhaps it is the lesser of two evils – don’t let them start their own nuke program. If Iran could do it, then so could the Saudis. They are already shopping for nukes – so Trump may have gotten a concession from them in exchange. We just don’t know, but I do know that Trump is not into making arms deals for money or friends or just for grins. All I’m saying, is Trump is our best hope, our only hope for the next few years, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. For what he has given us so far, he deserves it.

]]>
By: Thx1138 https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32971 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 13:51:18 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32971 honestliberty, can I come live with you?

]]>
By: JB https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32970 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 12:43:32 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32970 So far commenters here have missed a glaring error of “logic”, distracted by political chicanery.

“Here’s the point. It wasn’t a mistake. It was bald-faced lie. And what kind of politician tells that lie, knowing he can be exposed, knowing he can face withering attacks?

The answer: The kind of politician who deludes himself into thinking he can get away with it, because he believes everyone else is so stupid he won’t get caught.

The kind of politician who begins to believe his own lie.

The kind of politician who lives in his own little universe, where he can say and do whatever he wants to.

The kind of politician who is addicted to lying.

This describes most politicians. This describes their choices and their sickness.”

Jon, who speaks often of having been trained in logic,and uses it as a tenet of his course material, uses induction to make his case.

Definition of Induction by Webster:
“LOGIC reasoning from particular facts or individual cases to a general conclusion; also, a conclusion reached by such reasoning”

Karl Popper published in 1935 his book entitled The Logic of Scientific Discovery wherein he begins his thesis with the problem of Inductive Logic:

“It is usual to call an inference ‘inductive’ if it passes from singular statements (sometimes also called ‘particular’ statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theories.

Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.

The question whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions, is known as the problem of induction.

That inconsistencies may easily arise in connection with the principle of induction should have been clear from the work of Hume; also, that they can be avoided, if at all, only with difficulty. For the principle of induction must be a universal statement in its turn. Thus if we try to regard its truth as known from experience, then the very same problems which occasioned its introduction will arise all over again. To justify it, we should have to employ inductive inferences; and to justify these we should have to assume an inductive principle of a higher order; and so on. Thus the attempt to base the principle of induction on experience breaks down, since it must lead to an infinite regress.”

Genuine students of logic would have spotted the error immediately.

]]>
By: honestliberty https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2017/07/05/canada-scandal-how-does-minister-of-defence-still-have-a-job/#comment-32969 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:37:28 +0000 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?p=18546#comment-32969 Value

]]>