I Live In England and your modules are very fascinating and very well informed and no there not a single use of hyperbole in my comment. Thank you for all your hard work
i will be spending the next few days in work listening to these lectures ,you have a nice way about you , that i appreciate ,logic and rhetoric should never have been removed from the curriculum ,as all things considered ,these are the wind that carry all other fields of study ,as a Christian I find ,even in skewed Christianity ,that all other philosophies viewed through these two lenses are exposed for what they are ,as such the devil always trips over his own tail
Professor Sadler, is it possible to upload the videos on this channel to your personal channel or are these videos considered property of of the school?
1) Show me evidence that this is true and that is has been more or less enduring since the program's initiation. 2) I was about the ask the same of you. Dr Sadler explains the structure of both systems more than adequately in the video. Where do you see similarities in their structures? 3) It isn't a hasty generalization. I was following your logic, nearly word for word, and showing that you could insert any government program in there and come to the conclusion that it's some sort of scam.
Think of it this way, if I told you to give me $100 today to give to your grandmother and promised to give you $100 (assuming zero inflation) in 50 years which I would obtain from your grandson, then I only need you to have a grandson for the system to work. Now, of course, not everyone is going to have a grandson and not everyone is going to be able to give away $100 in the present, so we spread the expenses across the population and ask the more affluent to contribute more.
The word "rhetoric" has a bit of a negative connotation. This lecture series seems to support that. As if Sadler is saying, "Here are all the ways rhetorical devices can be used to manipulate your belief system." Is this a fair representation of what rhetoric is, or am I misinterpreting. I've always thought that "rhetoric" in an academic sense was more about strategies in verbally expressing clearly, not muddling, information.
Authoritative academic sources have unequivocally concluded that this fascist misrepresentation of rhetoric is the worst imaginable comment in the history of commenting. ;)
Second, the reason ponzi schemes collapse because each new set of investors must be larger than the previous set of new investors to maintain the system (which is a mathematical impossibility). With SS, you mere need a consistent ratio of people working to people receiving money from the system.
The levels of rhetoric and such linguistic mastery found in the Holy Qur'an is so unparalleled that within the Quran itself stands a 1400 year undisputed challenge. The Qur'an states "if one thinks this book was not from God then bring a book like it, you will not be able to. least, you will not even to bring forward a chapter like it" (Quran). The smallest chapter in the Qur'an is comprised merely of three, yes, three verses. Yet, it's been 1400 years and the only task one has to do to disprove the claim of Islam and the Muslims is to bring three verses matching the linguistic phenomenon paralleling the sciences of rhetoric and language demonstrated in the Holy book of the Muslims. History testifies, many have tried but only to end in vain. Something to look into I guess when it comes to the world of language.
