Friday, March 16, 2007

When English isn't English...

Actually, that could at worst be labeled an exaggeration, claiming multiple 16 year olds instead of just the one. A lie of omission would be if Wes were leaving out an innocent and/or legitimate reason he was hanging out with teenagers (and some number of 20 year olds). Except there isn't one to leave out. He's solicited them to perform at least one admitted crime

Can anyone else see the contradictions here?

Claiming multiple 16 year olds instead of just one is an exaggeration - but they're apparently ok. Exaggerations aren't used as tools for manipulation and deception. (I'm not quite sure for what they're used APART from manipulation and deception, but it's definitely not a lie. Well, not much of one. lol.)

A lie of omission would be leaving out any factors which might indicate possibilities contrary to the bullshit the author was trying to concoct. For example, Matt is not only a graffiti vandal, but in one such gathering at the station, it was discussed what sort of art he liked - legitimate art - and to what purposes besides vandalism such skills could be put. The very real possibility of exhibiting canvases at various free community galleries was just such an option.

Tom's carpentry apprenticeship is discussed, overcoming Ahmed's antipathy to reading is discussed... and so on it goes, along with bands, pubs, mates etc. I guess because the conversation generally centres on what's important and relevant to them and they value my opinions insofar as such are pertinent to their interests is why they enjoy sitting around at the station talking to me.

Suggesting my only reason for being there is to get them to do crime - or for any other reason - is just more bullshit.

But you already knew that.

The only reason you have for making bullshit suggestions about me and the people with whom I converse is the fact you fear me and I annoy you. And that's the whole truth.

Fallacy of Exclusion - or lie by omission...
Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded
from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is
called the "principle of total evidence".

Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones will probably vote Tory. (The information left out is that Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton vote Liberal or N.D.P.)

The Leafs will probably win this game because they've won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came over last place teams, and today they are playing the first place team.)

Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the outcome of the inductive argument. Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence will change the conclusion.

And this one's just because it was too obvious to ignore...

"I desperately want to see that video, zippy. It sounds like it would replace all comedy DVDs that I own."

Jen dear, get Bint to send you vids of her kid's parties with his little tard mates. Watch what happens when the adult takes the corkscrew off the one with glasses - that's fuckin hilarious.

Oh shit! That's Bint's throwback! Oops.

No comments: