12/11/2022 0 Comments Ex falso quod libetEx falso quod libet series#*Next Up: Gus Kotka and Johnny Reb begin a summer series on Juneteenth 2018, Somewhere On Our Way.īrickner has a 1997 political science doctorate from Purdue University, cofounded Illinois NORML in 2001, and was a 2007 National NORML Cannabis Advocate Awardee. We the People might follow a similar plan, one of mimicry the 1792 usurpers read the Constitution and acted with pen and paper: nowadays, it feels like We the People are beginning to do the same thing. The original usurpation of 9 April 1792 was a fill-in-the-blank moment the bill was prepared with a blank left for a number and then the usurpers wrote in 33,000. It wasn’t until 1929, with the next decennial enumeration looming, that a law was passed setting House representation at 435, regardless of number, thus counteracting the definition of We the People. Since the first usurpation, Congress had at least kept using a number, they just kept increasing the ratio in favor of the usurpers instead of using the census as intended, the counting of We the People for representation, the 1920 House openly ignored Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our Constitution. With women getting the vote and other social disruptions within the WW1 era, the House of 1920 did something extraordinary for the second great wrong: nothing. The original constitutional ex falso quodlibet may appear small and perhaps harmless, but consider this: it created the conditions for the second great usurpation, the one that began in 1920. The first involves the usurpation that happened 9 April 1792, when, in response to President Washington’s veto of the first bill sent from Congress regarding the enumeration (census of 1790) and representation, the House of Representatives usurped a shall the House ignored Washington’s veto and the constitutional ratio of "one for every thirty Thousand" and passed a number more likeable to the usurpers: one for every 33,000. There are two great wrongs involving We the People and the usurpation of representation according to numbers. ( logic) The principle or axiom of logic stating that if a contradiction or a false proposition is proven to be true, then it proves that everything is true. I’m pretty sure Willis and Millie didn’t know any Latin other than what they learned in Bible study they would have understood “ from a falsehood, anything (follows)” though, and even taught a similar lesson: two wrongs don’t make a right. The book Farm Boy by Archie Lieberman (1974) depicts my maternal grandparents, Willis and Mildred (Evans) Hammer, as they farmed and raised a family. eine Aussage der Form „ wenn P, dann Q“, wobei P ein beliebiger faktisch unwahrer Satz ist, zum Beispiel die Aussage „Die Erde ist eine Scheibe“.The phrase ex falso quodlibet / from a falsehood, anything (follows), is known as the “principle of explosion” because it blows-up (makes trivial) how true and false work. Im weiteren Sinn wird mit „ex falso quodlibet“ auch die kontrafaktische materiale Implikation bezeichnet, d. Die Bezeichnung „ex falso sequitur quodlibet“ ist nur dann gleichbedeutend, wenn das darin zitierte „falsum“ als logische und nicht bloß faktische Falschheit verstanden wird. In den meisten logischen Systemen erfüllen Widersprüche diese Bedingung, deshalb die Bezeichnung „ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet“. Logisch falsch ist ein Satz dann, wenn er aus logischen Gründen nicht wahr werden kann. ▪ Aus zwei widersprüchlichen Sätzen folgt jede beliebige Aussage. Ex falso quodlibet, eigentlich ex falso sequitur quodlibet, abgekürzt zu „e.f.q.“, eindeutiger ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, bezeichnet im engeren Sinn eines der beiden in vielen logischen Systemen gültigen Gesetze: ▪ Aus einem logisch – nicht bloß faktisch – falschen Satz folgt jede beliebige Aussage. A statement of the form "if P, then Q", where P is any factually untrue proposition, for example the statement "The Earth is a disk". In a broader sense, "ex falso quodlibet" also refers to the contrafactual material implication, H. The term "ex falso sequitur quodlibet" is only equivalent if the "falsum" cited therein is understood as a logical and not merely factual fallacy. In most logical systems contradictions meet this condition, hence the term "ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet". Logically incorrect is a sentence if, for logical reasons, it can not be true. ▪ From any two contradictory propositions, any statement follows. Ex falso quodlibet Ex falso quodlibet, actually ex falso sequitur quodlibet, abbreviated to "efq", clear ex contradiction sequitur quodlibet, refers in the narrow sense to one of the two laws valid in many logical systems: ▪ From a logical - not merely factual - Statement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |