FWIW the logical flaw you were discussing in Trump's silly claim that being impeached but not convicted made him immune from criminal prosecution, because the law says if he IS convicted he can still be prosecuted, is a basic fallacy that in mathematical logic would be called "assuming the inverse." (I heard Chutkin called it something like "negating the antecedent", but same difference.)
So if you start with the statement 'p implies q', the inverse would be 'not-p implies not-q', and it's an elementary principle that a statement being true does not imply the inverse is true. Thus if you say all fire engines are red, that doesn't mean anything that isn't a fire engine is not red. I mean.... duh.
Cool, that was it, Denying the Antecedent was the phrase the judge used, which was new to me. I assume the idea is that denying the antecedent does not allow you to thereby deny the consequence.
I'm not a logician, but I think you're bang on. The failure is that the fallacy ignores or overlooks any other true possibilities that could have produced q.
If you're a mechanic, you have a job.
You're not a mechanic.
Therefore, you don't have a job. (Obviously fallacious, since it's easy to think of lots of jobs that don't involve being a mechanic.)
“ if Hunter Biden engaged in criminal tax fraud of a kind that anyone else similarly situated would be charged for, then prosecutors should knock themselves out charging him.”
“Similarly situated” individuals should be charged and prosecuted per the law. Equitable application of the law, regardless of social status or political affiliation, remains a significantly divisive issue in America.
Article started out great. It's value, as always, is in having an insider's informed, well articulated view. My only suggestion is to have the photo of your in Havana at the bottom of the article. It was was somewhat difficult to regain my concentration after seeing that dazzling image.
You nailed it Asha!! The Rocha story of 40 years of anti USA actions and practices. I also studied the history and politics of Latin America as well as Soviet Russia. Must be why we click😂 Teasing you. That is a fetching picture of you in the Pink car in Cuba. And that’s no lie. Sorry to comment a week late. Last weekend was my company 3 day retreat and holiday party. I’m just now catching up. Keep doing what you’re doing Dear Professor. We couldn’t interpret the frenetic legal controversies without you. You are for me. The National Security Legal whisperer. Need you.
FWIW the logical flaw you were discussing in Trump's silly claim that being impeached but not convicted made him immune from criminal prosecution, because the law says if he IS convicted he can still be prosecuted, is a basic fallacy that in mathematical logic would be called "assuming the inverse." (I heard Chutkin called it something like "negating the antecedent", but same difference.)
So if you start with the statement 'p implies q', the inverse would be 'not-p implies not-q', and it's an elementary principle that a statement being true does not imply the inverse is true. Thus if you say all fire engines are red, that doesn't mean anything that isn't a fire engine is not red. I mean.... duh.
Well put. I knew the fallacy as Denying the Antecedent or Fallacy of the Inverse. Either way it's a gross fundamental error of deductive reasoning.
Cool, that was it, Denying the Antecedent was the phrase the judge used, which was new to me. I assume the idea is that denying the antecedent does not allow you to thereby deny the consequence.
I'm not a logician, but I think you're bang on. The failure is that the fallacy ignores or overlooks any other true possibilities that could have produced q.
If you're a mechanic, you have a job.
You're not a mechanic.
Therefore, you don't have a job. (Obviously fallacious, since it's easy to think of lots of jobs that don't involve being a mechanic.)
Cheers 😁
Beautiful picture!
The car's nice too. 👌
Yeah, who knew Havana looked like that?
Don't know her.
“ if Hunter Biden engaged in criminal tax fraud of a kind that anyone else similarly situated would be charged for, then prosecutors should knock themselves out charging him.”
“Similarly situated” individuals should be charged and prosecuted per the law. Equitable application of the law, regardless of social status or political affiliation, remains a significantly divisive issue in America.
Hunter is definitely being selectively prosecuted/targeted. No question about it.
Similar to James Comey and Andrew McCabe coincidental tax audits?
Merry Christmas, just the same....[dry humor emoji]
Article started out great. It's value, as always, is in having an insider's informed, well articulated view. My only suggestion is to have the photo of your in Havana at the bottom of the article. It was was somewhat difficult to regain my concentration after seeing that dazzling image.
You nailed it Asha!! The Rocha story of 40 years of anti USA actions and practices. I also studied the history and politics of Latin America as well as Soviet Russia. Must be why we click😂 Teasing you. That is a fetching picture of you in the Pink car in Cuba. And that’s no lie. Sorry to comment a week late. Last weekend was my company 3 day retreat and holiday party. I’m just now catching up. Keep doing what you’re doing Dear Professor. We couldn’t interpret the frenetic legal controversies without you. You are for me. The National Security Legal whisperer. Need you.
In other words, Asha goes full-on 'Barbie-core'.
Anyway, here's a copy/ paste video link to a very cool Cuban song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXwLBS3yUkA
Anyhoo, you are funny my lady 🤣 😆 😂