from wordiq.com

A false premise is an erroneous proposition on which a statement is made or conclusion is drawn. Since the premise (proposition, assumption, suggestion, or idea from which a conclusion is drawn)is not correct or not fully correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. Since logical arguments always require a core assumption, that specific core assumption (or set of assumptions) must be valid in order to draw a valid conclusion, or to correctly link a cause and its effect. The general issue is causal relationships.

For instance, the statement, "Anyone who kills another person must be insane," presumes there is no valid reason to kill, and that all killing is linked with insanity.

Killing exists as a component of human behavior. (premise)

Killing is insane. (false premise)

Therefore insanity is established in people who kill. (conclusion)

Given this premise, all armies at war would be insane (as would their generals and leaders), the death penalty would be insane, mercy killings would be insane, discontinuation of heart-lung function support on a 'brain-dead' person could be insane, defending one's own life or the lives of family or others would be insane, and so on. By extension, then, anyone killing another would naturally be subject only to an insanity plea in court, and never to regular prison for a murder they committed.

In reality, however, many of these points are debatable and might fall into the realm of a false premise.


In this thread

a 'terrifying' man had a, b, c, characteristics (premise)

characteristics a, b, and c are 'terrifying' (false premise)

therefore anyone with a, b, c characteristics is 'terrifying' (conclusion)

NO!

Ok, maybe not kill them but hurt them.

i don't what all of this irrelevant talk means, but someone made a comparison... and the similarities are there, whether you like it or not....

Still playing that scratched record, eh?

Everyone should just print their own money?

That idea is so far out of this world that NASA can't get a radar fix on it.

radar?

Perhaps NASA can see it by using the Hubble Space Telescope.

If you understood what money actually is, you may not think so.

For example, to print my own money:

First, I have a service or product for sale.... I will print a check or contract that states that it (the paper contract or check) is worth 10 widgets (products) on demand, and I give it to John Doe in exchange for his services of mowing my lawn.

With that check, John Doe can get 10 widgets. OR If he does not want any widgets, he can trade it to someone else who needs widgets, or he can trade the paper contract for some other paper contract, like for one that gives you five meals at the local dinner, or 10 bales of hay, or 8 gallons of gas etc.

These are commodities being traded.... not directly, but through paper. That paper is "money." It has assets to back it up.

So what is.... Legal tender?.........

Printing your own money is like writing a check or contract. You sign it. When you write a bank check for $20.00 the person you wrote the check to can then take the check to a bank and exchange it for Federal reserve notes which are legal tender for paying your debts.

Legal tender means that because of the law, if you owe a debt, your debtor must take the Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for payment of that debt.

But what if one day the dollar became so worthless or so inflated that you can't pay your debts with it and your debtor no longer wanted it in exchange for paying your debt? He wanted silver, or 20 chickens. As long as the law forces him to accept the legal tender, he might have to, but he might tell you he would rather have 20 chickens. But 20 chickens might be worth a lot more than the debt you owe because the Federal Reserve notes can only purchase 3 chickens.

Trading and bartering usually involves trading one commodity for another. It is all voluntary.

Like: I'll give you six goats for 24 chickens. .. that might be the going rate.

If you want to print your own money you would write a check or contract that says this is good for one goat. Anyone holding that paper can exchange this paper for one goat or something worth one goat.

In the real world of real trading, supply and demand alone will determine how many chickens it takes to buy one goat.

But in this world of paper trading, (stocks and bonds) supply and demand is controlled by fiat money which may at some point have no real assets to back it up, and commodities (like gold and silver and cattle and goats)in the paper markets are sold and traded when they don't even exist.

It is just trading paper.

The people who trade on the Stock Market have lost touch with the real world of real things. They are trading paper for paper and this trading effects the prices of the real things.

In this way, they are manipulating prices and interfering with supply and demand.





Futures:
That is purchasing a contract for something that has not arrived yet. Corn that has not been grown, pigs that have not been born... how silly is that?

similarities were not the issue

the issue was the characterization that they were 'terrifying'


it would be like finding some random similarities between Jesus and Obama and calling them 'supernatural'

No, in some cases the exact same techniques are being used for the exact same purpose. Some of the exact same results are occurring. You are trying to make an apples to oranges comparison of what is an apples to apples event. They are propaganda techniques used to sway the people in a national political campaign. The aftermath of both was an increase on political power and violations of people's rights.

A difference is that in Hitler's case, the people gave him the power. In Obama's case, he is just taking the power by violating the constitution. Due process is falling by the wayside.

really?

so what was Hitler and Obamas common purpose?

obviously it isnt to create a blonde haired blue eyed race,,,,lol

what are the similar results?

any american demographic been rounded up and gassed lately?

and what power has Obama 'taken'?


more rhetoric with no backup,,,,as inane as trying to make strengths like oratory skills seem 'terrifying'

so what was Hitler and Obamas common purpose?
To usurp the constitution and our legal government system.
And more boldly if he gets a second term.

lol,, Hitler didnt have 'the constitution' to usurp

True, he had the Reichstag to burn instead..

OOPs..

Weimar Republic's new constitution was adopted in August 1919. Many historians put the blame for Weimar's future political problems on this constitution in that, ironically, it was too fair as it included everybody regardless of their political beliefs.

Elections were built around universal suffrage and proportional representation. However, the theoretical strength of the constitution was also its Achilles heel. Everybody was allowed to vote including extremists from both sides of the political spectrum - left and right. The system of proportional representation also meant that if any minor party got the necessary votes, they would have party members in the Reichstag. The major parties would continue to dominate the Reichstag, but the minor parties could disrupt proceedings and make the party in power - the Social Democrats - look incapable of maintaining order in its very seat of power. This is exactly what the new Nazi Party did in its early years. It got enough votes to get a few members into the Reichstag (as a result of proportional representation) and those Nazis elected then did what they could to 'prove' to the German people that Ebert and the Social Democrats were incompetent in dealing with such basics as maintaining discipline within the Reichstag.

The constitution was to play a major part in the years 1930 -1933 when the president, Hindenburg, appointed and sacked chancellors seemingly at will.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weimar_republic_constitution.htm

Hitler was in effect previous to and during the 'new' constitution

we have no such new constitution


ours has been in effect a couple hundred years , the comparison is still severely lacking,,,

hahaha..

entertainment value.. you see what I mean?

As I stated and you ignored ... due process. Obama is now murdering American citizens without due process. There is a list of Constitutional violations that is all over the news in different parts. You are working hard to avoid the direct comparisons.

Gassing citizens? The straw argument raises it's head once again. Do I need to post the definition of a straw man argument again?

The comparison has been clearly stated more than once that this thread is about the techniques used to rise to power, not the atrocities committed during WWII.