beaver fever...

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken apart, without any of those parts being able to be fractured.
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.
The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.
An example:

1. A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
2. A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
3. Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.

The converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole. Both fallacies were addressed by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations.
An application: Famously and controversially, in the philosophy of the Greek Anaxagoras (at least as it is discussed by the Roman atomist Lucretius), it was assumed that the atoms constituting a substance must themselves have the salient observed properties of that substance: so atoms of water would be wet, atoms of iron would be hard, atoms of wool would be soft, etc. This doctrine is called homeomeria, and it plainly depends on the fallacy of division.
If a system as a whole has some property that none of its constituents has (or perhaps, it has it but not as a result of some constituent having that property), this is sometimes called an emergent property of the system.

Good radio this morning listening to kim hill grill arthur baysting on legalising/decriminalising marawanna.
Kim adopted the moralist stance but as baysting pointed out she did not marshall one good argument about whhy marrawanna should be illegal apart from the bluesnoses who want to drink objecting to others pleasures.
Congrats to Arthur Baysting for pointing out that over 600,000 young black men are incarcerated in the US because of marrawana. At approx $30,000 a year to hold these people then thats an $18 trillion a year business.
No wonder the private prisons and their employees are so adamantly opposed to legalising marrawanna.
No wonder there is such antipathy and hatred to President Barack Obama because he is going to take away the cookie jar and reunify families after this horrible pecuniary diaspora.
And fyi Kim drugs are specific in their action.
i.e. you do not give someone blood pressure drugs for poliomyelitis.
First of all every addiction has as its primary goal to prevent the addict feeling their true thoughts and feelings.
Getting technical.
The action of alcohol is a defense against  paranoia which in turn is a defense against  latent unconscious passive homosexuality.
The action of hallucinogens is to allow the user to foster the illusion that they can control their depression.
Paranoiacs kill.
Marrawanna users dont unless they are in a gang and owed money.
Furthermore the antis rely on an emergent and completely false version of the fallacy of composition.
i.e. they say that all marrawanna users kill and run amok and if it is legalised then New Zealand will be overun by a zombie (poor people) army of crazed killers.
Poppycock.
And the thing is if it was made legal then it would soon disappear into the social fabric as the drug of choice for those who want to grow their own and disconnect themselves from the purveyors of alcohol and tobacco and become invisible.



Meanwhile New Zealand is a repository for myriad other aberrant behaviours.
Large dogs, noisy cars, $30,000 mortgages to travel to England for 6 weeks and all other sorts of nonsensical grasping for infantile ephemeral distractions.
Compensatory toys for a small penis.


Last night The Blues Show on Radio ArrowFM featured a song by english songbird Dana Gillespie.
She definitely had the pipes.
I sort of remember her from way back then so today I googled her and she looks quite nice but wowie zowie she got the big boobs!


Have been reading ex-pat kiwi Juliet Mitchells book on 'psychoanalysis and feminism' after a huge hiatus from when I first picked it up. An erudite tome and I must say I found it much easier to read after studying philosophy at university.
I often wonder why the big mouths in the media never talk about her.
Too hard!
or
they just want to make it up themselves as they go along.
They never talk about Lou Andreas-Salome either.
A feminist who did it rather than just talk about it.
See here in New Zealand everybody knows how to talk about it but not how to do it.
They can all go down to the garden centre and get bullshitted about what to plant but apart from that they know fuck all about anything.


Hey what about the Kenworth and Yamaha logos.
I had a Yamaha six string once.
It was a beauty.
Cant remember what happened to it now.
Damn.
And I found a cap with the Kenworth logo on it a few months back and now I look out for the big rigs just like a kid again.
Momma hated diesels real bad.
I believe that it had something to do with Dad!
Hehehehe.


Congrats to Mick Jagger for opposing the independence of Scotland.
As we say in NZ its just a rort.
Sure it all sounds good and rah rah rah but all it means is a duplication of services, jobs for the lucky and more taxation to pay for the aspirations of dipshits.
There.
howzatt.

and lbnl: have the governments of Israel and Syria instituted a Lebanese cedar reaforestation programme lately or are they still fighting over trees left over from 2,000 years ago?