the loaded question and the setup… “personal reference”

does free will.. have a paradox.. were will can get in the way of

understanding it outside.. of your “assumptions”(often personal) of  “subject”?

in other words.. how could someone “whistle blow” in a society setup.. to “system think” itself.. to predict… reactions to its own “prides and prejudices” for… “benefits” in it.. and to sustain said system….to benefit those that “are benefiting” form that system…


meaning.. in scheming who is allowed to make mistakes and who is not..

a loaded question is under the assumption that “context” is absolute… an “everybody knows..”etc…


A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

This fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question (not to be confused with raising the question),[3] which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.[4]

meaning i do not desire your money or to be in on your schemes..

i believe in GOD and he will destroy your schemes…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s