John Loeffler Steel on Steel; Using Logic Filters on Political Haze-

Using Logic Filters on Political Haze

CLICK TO LISTEN

A new thread opens today as an ongoing attempt to separate the realities of radical Islam from the politically correct counter-arguments. Michael Fetcher from the Investigative Project on Terrorism (www.investigativeproject.org) premiers on the show with an accounting of a U.S. State Department settlement with a possible Sharia bank that might have connections with terrorist groups.

Continuing the “bright lights” thread, are there any good ideas for reviving the economy outside of Washington? Economist Dr. Laurie Bassi. Ph.D., (www.mcbassi.com) is co-author of the book, /Good Companies: Business Success in the Worthiness Era/.

John’s boralogue examines highlights of this week’s Republican debate through a logic filter, excerpting the important points from a morass of political jargon.

Click here to subscribe to Steel on Steel for Podcasts and Downloads!

New DVD: Branson 2011 Conference

The New DVD of John’s speech at the Branson Worldview Weekend conference is available to order! It contains an update to the DVD “The Coming Persecution of Christians in the West”.

John explains the five stages of this coming persecution. He lays out a detailed history of Marxism, Socialism and Globalism. Now is the time to prepare your family and church for the time of trial ahead.

This DVD was on back-order but is now available in our store for only $16.00 with free shipping.

Get your copy now! Click here.

Call us toll-free 1-800-829-5646.

Fallacy of the Week – Begging the Question

Begging the Question _ jumping to the conclusion of what someone is attempting to prove before they finalize their statement. (Petitio Principii)

Example:

“”If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.”

An argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side. This fallacy happens in an argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain.

It becomes circular in form as the point being made is derived from the assumed truth of the first premise. There is no objective authority or external evidence given to support the argument.

Circular reasoning:

“The layers of rock certainly date the fossils, but the fossils within them date the layers more accurately.”