Another Way To Express Your Negative Feelings Or Thoughts

It seems to me a contradiction in terms to say, as some have, that satire need have no moral lesson or didactic purpose, for the essence of satire is aggression or criticism, and criticism has always implied a systematic measure of good and bad.

Accordingly, the best definitions of satire should be formulated from a combination of its corrective intent and its literary method of execution. Satire is mainly a literature genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is supposed to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm (in satire, irony is militant) but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This “militant” irony or sarcasm often professes to approve (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack. The satire must be presented in a manner which will bring action, and in a world of complacent hypocrites, irony, with its various means of presentation, is essential; the message cannot be delivered without it, if that message is to have any tangible effect. In a two word abstract, the purpose of satire is the correction or deterrence of vice, and its method is to attack hypocrisy through the ironic contrast between values and actions.

This is an example of how satire or parody works. A famous video of John Stewart defending Islamophobia in United States of America. Let's take a look....

 

Analogy

An analogy is based on a comparison between two or more things or events. Analogies often contain words or phrases such as like, as, similarly, or compared to. Noticing similarities between things or events is one of the ways we learn from experience. A child burns his hand on a candle and afterwards stays away from a campfire because of the similarity between the two.

Analogies can exist on their own as descriptive devices, such as in “She’s like a bull in a China shop” or “Finding my car in the commuter parking lot like looking a needle in a haystack”. Metaphors are a type of descriptive analogy which is frequently found in literature. In this passage from Macbeth (act V), Shakespeare compares life to a stage play. 

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets upon the stage

And then is heard no more

In addition to standing on their own, analogies can be used as premises in arguments. An argument based on an analogy claims that if two things are similar in one or more ways, they are probabl alike in other respects as well.

Premise: X (which is familiar) has characteristics a,b and c.

Premise: Y (which is not as familiar) has characteristics a and b.

Conclusion: Therefore, Y probably also has characteristic c.

Arguments based on analogies are common in many fields including law, religion, politics and the military. Analogies can be used to refute arguments containing weak or false analogies. One way to do this is to respond to the faulty analogy with a new one. A refutation using a new analogy can start out with a phrase such as “You might as well say that” or “That is like saying”.

The Truth Behind The Assassination of Caesar

Who is Julius Caesar? What led Julius Caesar to make himself dictator of Rome? Julius Caesar was born in Rome on 12 or 13 July 100 BC into the prestigious Julian clan. His family were closely connected with the Marian faction in Roman politics. He was a politician and general of the late Roman republic, who greatly extended the Roman Empire before seizing power and making himself dictator of Rome, paving the way for the imperial system.

Caesar himself progressed within the Roman political system, becoming in succession quaestor (69), aedile (65) and praetor (62). In 61-60 BC he served as governor of the Roman province of Spain. Back in Rome in 60, Caesar made a pact with Pompey and Crassus, who helped him to get elected as consul for 59 BC. The following year he was appointed governor of Roman Gaul where he stayed for eight years, adding the whole of modern France and Belgium to the Roman Empire, and making Rome safe from the possibility of Gallic invasions. He made two expeditions to Britain, in 55 BC and 54 BC. 

Caesar spent some time in Egypt. He helped put queen Cleopatra back on the throne as Egypt’s ruler. Cleopatra’s brother had removed her from power. Next, Caesar marched east, to crush a rebellion in what is now Turkey. Caesar was now master of Rome and made himself consul and dictator. He used his power to carry out much-needed reform, relieving debt, enlarging the senate, building the Forum Iulium and revising the calendar. Dictatorship was always regarded a temporary position but in 44 BC, Caesar took it for life. His success and ambition alienated strongly republican senators. Many Romans admired him, but others felt uneasy that he had so much power. Some senators felt the Roman Senate should have more power. These senators stabbed Caesar to death on March 15 in 44 bc. March 15 was known as the Ides of March in the Roman calendar. When people say, “Beware the Ides of March,” they are referring to the plot to kill Caesar and the possibility of unknown danger lurking nearby. 

This is a short video of the assassination of Julius Caesar that you guys can watch. Enjoy...    :)

Syllogism

A syllogism is simply a three-line argument, that is, an argument that consists of exactly two premises and a conclusion. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: the major term in the major premise, which forms the predicate of the conclusion, and the minor term in the minor premise, which forms the subject of the conclusion. The categorical term in common in the premises is called the "middle term". This takes the general form:

Major premise: A general statement.
Minor premise: A specific statement.
Conclusion: based on the two premises. 

There are three major types of syllogism:
Conditional Syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B).
Categorical Syllogism: If A is in C then B is in C.
Disjunctive Syllogism: If A is true, then B is false (A or B).

Also of note for syllogisms is:
Categorical Propositions: Statements about categories.
Enthymeme: a syllogism with an incomplete argument.
Modus Ponens: If X is true then Y is true. X is true. Therefore Y is true.
Modus Tollens: If X is true then Y is true. Y is false. Therefore X is false.
Set Theory: The basics of overlapping groups. 

For example:

Major premise: All birds are animals.
Minor premise: All parrots are birds.
Conclusion: All parrots are animals.

In this example, "animal" is the major term and predicate of the conclusion, "parrot" is the minor term and subject of the conclusion, and "bird" is the middle term.

Syllogisms are particularly interesting in persuasion as they include assumptions that many people accept which allow false statements or (often unspoken) conclusions to appear to be true. There is a difference between truth and validity in syllogisms. A syllogism can be true, but not valid (i.e. make logical sense). It can also be valid but not true.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning: Which One Is The Best Method?

 When detectives arrive at the scene of a crime, the first thing they do is to look for clues that can help them piece together what happened. A broken window, for example, might suggest how a burglar entered or exited. Likewise, the fact that an intruder didn’t disturb anything but a painting that hid a safe might suggest that the burglar knew exactly where the safe was hidden. And this, in turn, suggests that the burglar knew the victim.

The process described above is called inductive reasoning. It consists of making observations and then drawing conclusions based on those observations. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach. In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

Deductive reasoning works the other way from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

Here’s a memory trick to help you: You can remember that the word Inductive starts with a vowel, as does Evidence, so in Inductive reasoning, you begin with a consonant, so does the word Conclusion, which is where you begin in deductive reasoning.

Notorious Perpetrator: James Kelly??

The case of Jack the Ripper, which I'm sure we all know was a series of incredibly violent, brutal and gruesome murders primarily focused around Whitechapel in London during the late 1800's, has become to be known as the most famous unsolved murder case ever, yet at the same time It has also become by far the most researched murder case of all time. Solving it has been hailed the "holy grail" of detective work in fact...

James Kelly (20 April 1860-17 September 1929) was first identified as a suspect in Prisoner 1167: The madman who was jack the Ripper, by Jim Tully, in 1927. He was a well known figure, someone who was classified as "legally insane", and a proven violent man. Proven as in the months leading up to the Ripper murders he escaped from Broadmoor Asylum, where he spent his time after being classified insane, or more specifically as a Paranoid Schizophrenia, which was where he was being held for the very brutal murder of his first wife Sarah Brider. He later escaped in early 1888, using a key he fashioned himself. 

After the last Ripper murder in London in November 1888, the police searched for Kelly at what had been residence prior to his wife’s murder but they were not able to locate him. In 1927, almost 40 years after his escape, he unexpectedly turned himself back in to officials at the Broadmoor Asylum. He died two years later, presumably of natural causes.

A retired NYPD cold-case detective named Ed Norris examined the Jack the Ripper case for a Discovery Channel program called “Jack the Ripper in America”. In it, Norris claims that James Kelly was not the only Jack the Ripper’s real identity; he was also responsible for multiple murders in cities around the United States. Norris highlights a few features of the Kelly story to support his contention. He worked as a furniture upholsterer, a job that requires the handiness with a knife. He also claimed to have resided in the United States and left behind a journal that spoke of his string disapproval of the immorality of prostitutes and of his having been on the “warpath” during his time as a fugitive. Norris claims Kelly was in New York at the time of a Ripper-like murder of a prostitute named Carrie Brown, as well as in a number of cities while each experienced, according to Norris, one or two brutal murders of prostitutes while Kelly was there.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Who is Jack the Ripper?

Innumerable number of people have asked the same question, Who is Jack the Ripper? Was he really the murderer? Up until this very moment, no one came up with the answers except for assumptions and their doubts. The identity of the killer of five women in the East End of London in 1888 has remained a mystery, but the case has continued to horrify and fascinate. 

Between August and November 1888, the Whitechapel area of London was the scene of five brutal murders. The killer was dubbed 'Jack the Ripper'. . The name originated in a letter, written by someone claiming to be the murderer that was disseminated in media. The letter is widely believed to have been a practical joke, and may have been written by a journalist in an intentional attempt to intensify interest in the story. There has been much speculation as to the identity of the killer. It has been suggested that he or she was a doctor or butcher, based on the evidence of weapons and the mutilations that occurred, which showed a knowledge of human anatomy.

Attacks ascribed to the Ripper typically involved female prostitutes from the slums whose throats were cut prior to abdominal mutilations. Violence to prostitutes was not uncommon and there were many instances of women being brutalised, but the nature of these murders strongly suggests a single perpetrator. The murderer is also sometimes thought to have made contact by letter with several public figures. These letters, like the chalk message, have never been proved to be authentic, and may have been hoaxes. The “Fromm Hell” letter, received by George Lusk of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, included half of a preserved human kidney, supposedly from one of the victims. Mainly because of the extraordinarily brutal character of the murders, and because of media treatment of the events, the public came increasingly to believe in a single serial killer known as “Jack the Ripper”. 

Extensive newspaper coverage bestowed widespread and enduring international notoriety on the Ripper. An investigation into a series of brutal killings in Whitechapel up to 1892 was unable to connect all the killings conclusively to the murders of 1888, but the legend of Jack the Ripper solidified. As the murders were never solved, the legends surrounding them became a combination of genuine historical research, folklore and pseudohistory. The term “ripperology” was coined to describe the study and the analysis of the Ripper cases. There are now over one hundred theories about the Ripper’s identity, and the murders have inspired multiple works of fiction.