Seriously, please warn people before you post a video like this. I was negatively surprised to hear that rape story.
Take any nigga off the streets, give him/her a "team" of researchers and a script, manager, etc. and shazam, out pops "OPRAH" or whoever you want it to be.
She is one racist, I've always felt that about her, and did I forget to mention she is as dumb as dirt too.
All her knowledge comes from the "writers" who produce her show, she was placed there to "brainwash" people into believing there are "many" GODS.
NO SKILLS and NO REAL TALENT...unless you believe talking, eating with your mouth open, or talking while you're eating are talents.
Oprah = Racist
David Duke = Racist
They're siblings of the mind.
Just want to say it as a white person to be equal to the black race.
'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul
Don't pay too much attention to the hypocrite talking heads' circular nonsense.
You'll risk losing neurons way faster than normal; that is: faster than any - otherwise sane - person can afford.
And that's an irreversible process. You're warned.
Please keep yourself sane.
For liberty's sake.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
Circular or contradictory? I'm thinking the latter.
Circular: relationship, reciprocity.
Contradictory: negation, nullify, one direction then against that direction.
(I think most users of the word circular intend to use the word contradictory and that this misuse was made long ago deliberately and fanned out to the populace to discredit looking at relationships of things, thereby deadening the ability to think.)
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.
Well, in fact, the "absurd" or "inconsistent" in logics is obviously found in more or less blatant contradictions (starting from the same premises) which also can lead to endless, circular derivations for their same intermediary statements, which at times will be found "true", and at other times found "false"...
See also :
infinite loops in computer programs, and
Putting arbitrary made-up labels at any time** on things, concepts, persons, in complete disregard of the natural, standard, literal meaning of words in the language used for whatever is the argument, and in disregard of any honest and careful reasoning over a fixed set of assumptions ... is a sure way to end up with intelligence-insulting / -degrading absurdities.
Hence my warning about these two talking heads who don't seem to care much about what "racism" actually means, to begin with, anyway.
** where "emotions" (faked or not) help a lot in that regard
I was about to add that redundancy is another word I think people are thinking when they use circular. I looked up circular and found a fitting example and explanation: "Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan are banging at the doors, and the political establishment, consisting of politicians and the media, seems determined not to let them in on the grounds that they have no public support."
I think this example is redundant, not circular: "President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people." This example's second clause is the first clause said differently. lol. What a hoot.
The second example is a rewording of the first clause in the sentence's second, final clause. The first example doesn't consist of rewording; rather, it, the first example, an argument consisting of multiple statements (noted, in one sentence) is what a statement says and how it relates to the ones before and/or after it. The second example pertains to the sentence (itself), the words comprising the sentence that says the same message twice, bringing the description redundancy. So, circular-ism concerns argument and redundancy concerns statement? Perhaps an argument can be redundant, also.
The website is http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm
What do you think about these examples, Cyril -- are they the same or different?
Well, from my point of view, circularity certainly relates to arguments... Whether they end up in tautologies or contradictions.
An argument, to me, is a sort of competition between two proofs, arriving at the same, opposite, or related conclusions.
Then, one reasonable set of criteria I can think of, among others maybe, to decide who "wins" the argument, IMO, would be:
who used only lawful logical derivations, with hard facts for the variables, and without displaying any contradictions with the premises.
In case of ex aequo (both played fairly) the last determining criterion could be : who used the weakest (read: smallest) initial assumptions?
I think we ought to be defiant of eloquence, which can be used to push fallacies, strawmen, etc.
Only few honest and eloquent thinkers like Bastiat mastered it but never became its servant. Eloquence shall only be a cherry on top, nothing more. By no means necessary, anyway.
Back to the point : why the smallest assumptions preferably?
Since, as you know, with enough "if's", one can put Paris in a bottle... ;-)
As for redundancy, that might be more subtle, but AFAIC, I take it literally as just "redundant information" or "signal vs noise", and not really pertaining to arguments, but rather to the variables and/or nouns chosen during the process, etc.
Then we should kill all the black sports stars so whitey can take over professional sports again. The same with Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Get rid of the richest woman in the world who's black while were at it.
Free includes debt-free!
That would s'plain some of the war on terror then,
US government leads in racism
*YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME*
and getting more so every time you open your mouth, "oprah"
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: