Left is a sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at
finger pressure ). Click
Pictures for links, end pictures to enlarge.
As in other FREE pages available for cases on this website.
Fallacy.1. Deception, guile, trickery; a deception, trick; a false statement, a lie. Obs.
2. Deceitfulness (obs.).b. Deceptiveness, aptness to mislead, unreliability.
3. A deceptive or misleading argument, a sophism.
In Logic esp. a flaw, material or formal, which vitiates a syllogism; any of the species or types to which such flaws are reducible.
Also, sophistical reasoning, sophistry.
Provided by Tony, REAL court & ruling arguments, to assist in rebuttal arguments by British quasi judicial bodies that show aspects of being
pretenders, equivocators, purporters and subtracters. SOME of these are specially selected to riposte real arguments found excessively frequently with their exchanges with people unfamiliar with deceptive persuasions. Irrelevant thesis is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the dispute in question. First here are three different pages of the simpler forms of this fallacy.
Irrelevant thesis', or 'Ignoratio elenchi', or similarly a 'Red
herring' and 'missing the point.' Different names for the same form.
1, 2, 3.
A deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
Very frequently used, and the diversion is framed in very clever similarities with the original. Like a chameleon.
Another less complex example, clever in its simplicity because it is cloaked in legal language, and made to look close to the original that made it an item for fast delivery in a hearing that would leave its mark due to the speed of a viva voce exchange, where the ruling took place the next day, effectively meaning it was behind closed doors, disallowing the party to controvert. It's typical of media delivered sound bites, that are truncated exactly where the lie is effective at its apex. The argument is quite ludicrous, it was disambiguated in exchanges in a case W. Pendle V Bucks CC.
Red Herring. Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
“We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.”
“Argument” for a tax
“Argument” for making grad school requirements
Introductory preamble, skip to the focus.
Most fallacies, are overlays of other fallacies with divergent or convergent prominence. They are managed as part of a choreographed management of the function of “suppressio veri, sugegstio falsi” suppress the truth and suggest what's false. This function of human conduct is the correlation of the function of 'appetition and aversion', appetite for benefit and aversion to detriment, that shows a course of conduct with utter precision.
The begging the question argument can be very sophisticated, and I have provided a complex example used in the Central London County Court, where it was taken apart in the traversal bundle minutely. It's subtleties are far less obvious than the irrelevant thesis, and become very obscure when the semantic cloak is obscured in civil procedure rules, that are familiar to a lawyer, but not to the layman. Its was taken apart by a person familiar with at least 5 disciplines, two being logic, but a limited working experience of law. The logic was the tool that engaged with the form instantly, as it matched the ontological argument for the existence of God, originally by St. Anselm about the 10th Century, and an awareness of the problem of circularity and a serious confusion over the issue of whether existence is indeed a predicate. For these, click here. Sorry to digress here, for those interested in the deeper arguments it is expounded in a treatise shortly to be released.
The irrelevant thesis arguments in quasi judicial courts have become quite sophisticated, and needs careful focus on the ideas and thoughts expressed in the words and sentences. It is very important to look at the 'snap' factor, ie the match or close match of argument and rebuttal. If there is no instinctive or immediate perception of 'SNAP' then look deeper. The response arguments are carefully phrased to match as close a possible to the ideas in the original arguments. The “1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A 3. Topic A is abandoned,“ example makes A B C distinct but in real life it's far more subtle. Have a look at the first one here. Carefully cocooned in semantic overload, and prominence, so that it is easy to believe that what you are looking at, is like a 'stick insect' disguised as a real stick (ie: the argument closely matches your dispute), and you then accept the argument as valid against yours, when it is not. These are usually very valid arguments, and the trick used to to get as many words in your argument, into theirs, to disguise the wrapping to a close match, when it is a mismatch. The grammatical approach is quite simple, usually they will either swap a qualifying attribute, quality, property or else move the focus of the term to a higher generic level. See the first two arguments below. Both used by councils, successfully in one case with a judge supporting, because the appellant did not have the experience or articulate ability to dispute it, and in the second one, it's ongoing, but disambiguates easily. Click here.
A variety of methods are used to achieve this, notable for example in public office, where people are questioned, and prove unsuccessful in addressing questions, they are removed, others replace them, but the policies of the directing mid(s) remain in place, and small variations take place to palliate the change over or 'shuffle' as it's often called. The politic and policy system frequently show this where policies converge, and diverge, more recently being focussed on background forces of power and wealth that has intruded upon the democratic process substantially. The numbers of legal exchanges that reflect this function are legion. Typically, when several questions are asked of people carrying out official functions, they show the management of response that indicates the underlying thoughts with clarity as looking at either the surface reflection of water or what lies beneath. Official functions are often programmed responses that have to be escalated to the requisite levels in order to get access to truth, as increasingly decision making is centralised. Some basic principles reveal the underling patterns and their adherence to design and purpose.
Truthful responses have immediacy that crafted ones do not. Reviews that take days, weeks and months, reveal grappling with the questions and aversion, choice of words also shows two streams of consciousness. The main controlled conscious and directed output, and the natural flow from the contents of the subconscious complexes that break through in 'realisations.' showing cognitive dissonance.
The function of any adjudicator will reveal either passive observance, allowing the adversarial parties to fight unfairly, or show interference with management pursuant to; for example, furtherance of the 'overriding objective of fairness'. Like an umpire in a game, if certain rules are flouted without control, then it's obvious that under Court CPR, Civil Procedure Rules, some rules are treated strictly and others flexibly. This will show design and purpose, and is determined by perception of the critical path... Showing impartiality towards each side, while important, is not the same as showing impartiality where there is an equality of arms, or one side is is clearly demonstrating injustice.
The critical path of biased discretion shows its features in design and purpose when the process is ongoing or complete. When a flexible approach is used, and it coincides with one side, not balanced by the other; being treated strictly then clearly the adjudicator is biased without a shadow of doubt, especially when the party being supported has background circumstance of power or wealth that have influence. The result of such a hearing will be the proof that the use of discretion was applied with bias. Appeals denied re-enforce the view that the adjudicator is inflexible and does not treat the process independently, showing aspects of venality.
Responses that begin with phrases like “your comments have been noted”, leaving an air of unsatisfied expectation only. Depending on how this is phrased, it will mask intent to address the issues raised, or show they will be ignored.
The balance between the two functions of clear 'culpa lata', culpa lata dolo aequiparetur: ``a concealed fault is equivalent to a deceit'', And obvious candour shows the legal maxim “admit nothing and deny everything” in operation.
Silence, lack of cogent response, lack of relevant response, reveal the casuist and sophist at work with deception. If one has that recorded or in writing, it becomes incontrovertible immediately. It is part of the function of an amalgam in 'design and purpose', 'appetition and aversion', 'acts and omissions' where in each process those acts that leave traces, and omissions that leave none, but show coherence in the structure of design and purpose in achieving the goal, then the omissions, that are the cloak that wraps and hides the 'mens rea' can be easily teased out by direct questioning, and examination of response in several dimensions, of speed, reaction, colour of face, hesitation being prominent, and when CPR 16.5 is borne in mind; “a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.” the conclusion is the same anywhere else in open forums, as in a court of law.
This is simply one of the means to manage statistics to meet targets, in what are now called 'baseline performance indicators' meaning 'a shade' of targets as always. It serves to hide them also , in order to present them to most advantage. Convincing and persuading by numbers alone. Graphs make them much easier for consumptions as fast food sound bites.
Example One. Monitoring “parking fines are illegal” cases that pass through our sources.
Usually the outsider does not know, and is INFORMED by the council after they massage the facts.
They achieve this in many ways, and these ways are all being publicised with contributors at the link
If you ever read any of the pages at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice, and saw the evidence you will conclude unambiguously that false representations, cloaked with semantic gloze, in seeming truths is just part of the methodology.
The maxim “admit nothing and deny everything” is everywhere to be seen. Notice to admit questions get ignored, direct questions are responded with “Your points have been noted” and where Freedom of Information (FOI) questions are asked, and the material is ADVERSE they all hide. CPR 31.6 (b),(i) shows this is a serious breach but because large revenue is at stake with floodgate potential anyone observing sees the complete façade and series of fallacious arguments coming out like washing machine powder to whiten it all.
Statistics are massaged in many ways, and FOI is ignored in what they think are clever semantic tricks that are seen by anyone familiar with the tricks, instantly.
here is ONE or EACH type. As I cannot highlight to show the logical aspects of the anti-grammatical sentences you will have to look at the link here.
A Freedom of information question is asked, and the answer shows word prominence, preceded by negation, the standard blocking function to all attributes in language, to emphasize the idea the evidence does not exist, followed by the ambiguity of provide which all add up to clear notions of NO we will not compLIE with FOI, (for obvious reasons) and then cloak that with ambiguity in terms.
When the appeal has merit and poses class type danger, it will be responded to in standard 'irrelevant thesis' (ignoratio elenchi) as a pretext. The PCN is cancelled, and a hearing is avoided, a ruling is also avoided, and the problem gets brushed under the carpet.
Classic signs of 'culp lata' a hidden fault is the equivalent of deceit.
The whole semantic bundle buries the very few keywords also in classic style by telling the appellant that his request will require 600 pages and cost £500. When asked again to just send thre 2 pages on digital records in computer, they cannot understand the question? This is the classical 'ad baculum' argument species to raise the costs to deter.
Here is an example of a REFUSAL under FOI that clearly breaches the Act, is incompatible with transparency, the councils code of conduct and all is waived furiously to distract attention, while the keywords are hidden in as many pages of text as can be reasonably waffled to make a search difficult. Oddly enough when I see it it takes a scan of about 20 seconds to see the focus that is being hidden, so ridiculous is the remainder. It's like a jewel on the floor in dust, the glint simply shows like a light.
Observe the language here. Negation and prominence suggests “do not have” ie; it doesn't EXIST. Then to provide clarifies it does in fact exist, simply it's not in the “provide to public tray”, they really think they are clever, and they do get away with it......
Here is an example of the PRETEXT that makes it all just an administration error, and it relies on the single consumer not being in contact with others so it cloaks it as a single instance, and oversight.
In the Insight Case, the barrister and lawyers tried to palliate a series of lies, 10 in ONE letter alone, and classified it all as an admin error. When they were told they CANNOT extenuate all that into one error, then shown two words together that proved cognitive dissonance and was perjurous to complete silence. They started to argue among themselves and nearly got thrown out by the judge.
Standard template cut and paste extract.
Even a cancellation is wrapped up to disguise the reasons.