Category Archives: Critical Thinking

WHO IS BEING VIOLATED THE MOST?

How do you explain U.S. Senators willing to throw American justice under the proverbial bus of character death, in light of –
– A judge of impeccable record and character;
– A judge who has passed many FBI investigations;
– A devoted husband;
– A father;
– A man who has had hundreds of classmates, adult friends, and professional relationships give him
high marks for character;
– TO BELIEVE WOMEN THEY HAVE NOT MET OR VETTED.

The same people whom Americans have rejected in the last Presidential race, are now pushing the narrative that is opposite of our judicial system:
– Any accuser can accuse you of heinous crimes, and they must be believed because “look how courageous and brave” they are to come forward;
– The good judge is not to be believed because he is a man;
– The good judge is guilty because the propaganda media says so;
– Therefore, when it is convenient for the propaganda media, you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent.

The first woman accuser cannot remember where or when the good judge – to use a Baby Boomer expression from the sixties – forcibly felt her up for a brief span of time. Her BFF says she never knew of any such incident. The witnesses the accuser has named deny any knowledge of this alleged incident.

The second woman accuser called classmates before coming forward, asking if they remembered her alleged incident where the good judge exposed himself at a party, BECAUSE SHE JUST WASN’T SURE IF IT WAS HIM. (Talk about plausible deniability!) All class mates said they did not remember any such alleged incident.

The hooker’s sleazy judge, not wanting to be excluded from this smearing party, claims he has a string of women who will testify that the good judge allegedly participated in orgy sex. I suspect these people are like the ones Soros and the Democratic Party paid to be rioters at the beginning of the good judges’ confirmation process hearings.

On a personal note: I can tell you how it feels to be railroaded in a legal proceeding. In a divorce proceeding where we both filed for a divorce, my ex, his lawyer, and the judge were in legion with each other. During the first phase of the hearing, my ex accused me of doing every bad thing he had done – primarily his infidelity. (This is called projection, and the enemy within our country loves to use projection.)

I wrote on my lawyer’s legal pad that it was all lies. She wrote on her legal pad that I would get my turn to speak, after my ex finished his testimony. She lied. Before I knew it, the gavel sounded, and it was all over. She said that I would be just fine, and she needed the money they paid her, and she would deny it if I chose to do anything about it. She knew I had no money left for attorney fees. I FELT VIOLATED.

It would seem that this kind of corruption has become the norm instead of the exception I believed it to be at the time it happened to me.  If America lets this happen to the good judge, we can all expect that our broken system cannot be fixed – so what is the point of voting. This is the reaction from you that they are now counting on.

NOW MORE THAN EVER YOUR VOTE IS NEEDED TO STOP THIS KIND OF INJUSTICE. IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TAKES BACK EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS WE WILL BE DOOMED TO INJUSTICE FOR THE LONG-TERM FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

I am reminded of the prose by Martin Niemoller (1892-1934) depicting what happened when GOOD CITIZENS DID NOTHING!
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The Ninth Biblical Commandment says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” If we ignore what IS happening, are we not just as guilty as the people railroading the good judge? Our Judaeo-Christian law tells us that ‘A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT.’

WHO IS BEING VIOLATED THE MOST? WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE.

Contact your Senators TODAY and tell them that this good judge is being railroaded by a group of people who have no respect for our Constitutional Law; and are making our Constitutional law to be null and void. If we do not stop this today, you can expect the same treatment I received, and the same treatment the good judge is receiving. On any future date you may be accused of things you did not say or do.

WHO IS BEING VIOLATE THE MOST? YOU ARE, AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

You may quote me on this,
Texas Lady Juanita
Copyright © 2018 by Juanita Holloway-Walters

All Rights Reserved.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 MY CRITICAL THINKING CLASS NOTES / RHETORICAL DEVICES

These are meant to be used when reading articles and commentary. Enjoy a deeper understanding . . .

MY CRITICAL THINKING CLASS NOTES / RHETORICAL DEVICES
I reduced the class down to less than three pages!
Juanita Holloway-Walters aka Texas Lady Juanita

PERSUASIVE:

EUPHEMISM – Good expression replacing bad one that may offend

INUENDO – Insinuation of something deprecatory

RHETORICAL DEFINITION – To influence attitude or affect behavior, use images w/ positive or negative emotions (also known as Rhetorical Explanation and Rhetorical Comparison)

DYSPEMISM – Bad expression used to tone down the good

LOADED QUESTION – Question that rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions

RHETORICAL DEVICE – Influence attitudes or beliefs through association – adds to persuasive but not logical

DOWNPLAYER – Diminish importance of claim

PROOF SURROGATE – Expression in place of actual evidence or authority

HORSE LAUGH – Ridicule disguised as reasoning to reject claim

RHETORIC – Persuade rather than prove logically

STEREOTYPE – Oversimplified generalization about a person of a certain class

HYPERBOLE – Extravagant Overstatement

WEASELER – Expression used to protect claim from criticism by weakening it

COMMON FALLACIES:

AD HOMINEM – Argument against claim based on who made the claim instead of against the actual claim (cannot resist pointing out that The Tea Party people are attacked this way, with Ad Hominem arguments on the six o’clock news – by other political parties calling us names we would normally attribute to far left, and not debating the issues)

FALSE DILEMMA – Fallacious reasoning – x and y can both be false — false reasoning says x is true because y is false

PERSONAL ATTACK AD HOMINEM – Refusing claim because person making it we do not like, or we disapprove of them

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE – Lack of evidence against a claim doesn’t mean the claim gets any positive points

GENETIC FALLACY – YO Mama! Not really ha ha – Rejecting a claim on the basis of its origin or history

POISIONING THE WELL – Discrediting the claim in advance because we don’t like the person

BEGGING THE QUESTION – Argument in which conclusion is identical to the argument (restates argument)

INCONSISTENCEY AD HOMINEM – You can’t make that claim due to prior opposing stance (or your actions are opposite)

MISPLACED BURDEN OF PROOF – Case where burden of proof is on the wrong side

LINE-DRAWING FALLACY – Insisting that a line be drawn at x, when it could also be drawn at y or z

SLIPPERY SLOPE – Arguing that because x happens, then y and or z will also happen

CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM – Attempting to discredit claim by discrediting the person making the claim

PERFECTIONIST FALLACY – Concluding claim is false because its conclusion is not perfect

STRAW MAN – Ignores actual position and argues a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented position

PSYCHOLOGICAL & RELATED FALLACIES

WISHFUL THINKING – Accepting it because you want it to be true and vice versa

GUILT TRIP – Making someone feel guilty for not accepting claim

ARGUEMENT COMMON PRACTICE – Justify or defend on grounds that everyone knows it or does it

NATIONALISM – Because of nationalism one may be led to blind endorsement of policy or claim

ARGUMENT FROM ENVY – Induce acceptance by arousing feelings of envy

ARGUMENT FROM OUTRAGE – Invoking anger with inflammatory words followed by conclusion

ARGUMENT BY FORCE – Using threat to support some conclusion

ARGUMENT BY PEER PRESSURE – Threatened by rejection if you don’t accept a claim

GROUP THINK FALLACY – Identifying with a group takes the place of reason and deliberation on an issue

ARGUMENT FROM PITY – Supporting claim by invoking pity rather than legitimate argument

SCARE TACTICS – Frightening scenario instead of facts to get someone to see it your way

ARGUMENT FROM POPULARITY – Convince of argument just because all or most believe it

SMOKE SCREEN – Irrelevant topic introduced to lead you away from original issue (Politicians in Washington like this one)

RATIONALIZING – False pretext to satisfy our desires or interests (teens love this one)

SUBJECTIVISM – An assumption that is true for one person, yet not for another

RED HERRING – Same as SMOKESCREEN

ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION – Using tradition as the basis of a claim

RELATIVISM – Error that two different cultures can believe different on a fact (oh, I could write a book on this one)

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT – Saying I can hit you because you would hit me

SCAPEGOATING – Placing the blame on a person or a group in error because they are an easy target

Texas Lady Juanita

Copyright © 2018 by Juanita Holloway-Walters
All Rights Reserved.

Tagged , , , , , , ,