USING LOGIC IN A PROPER WAY

in logic •  25 days ago 

The interviewer must maintain an excellence in order to convince someone of something that exists. Unfortunately, he seems to have given up when, for example, he shows predominant scenes in which this has not been achieved. In doing so, he only heats up the atmosphere, which is already at volcanic temperatures.


Suggestion of questions in short:

  • How much crime has to be visible in your eyes for it to become your problem? On a scale from 0 to 10 (0 = no crime, 10 = highest crime imaginable)
  • What would you have to do to increase the problem? (Let him think for himself)

In long form dialogue, for example:
The question could have been: So you only suffer with the people affected by human trafficking crime if you experience it directly yourself or someone close to you does, correct? In this case, the answer is ‘yes’.

Question: So if human trafficking occurs in such a way that not only you, but also your family, friends or colleagues are affected by it, would that be the moment when the problem becomes yours? (probably yes)

Which would mean that if the crime has a level of frequency that it is clearly visible that the relevant authorities have not done enough to stop it, right?
When do you think the authorities and the police have to put a stop to the development of human trafficking when the numbers are still low (INVISIBLE) or do the numbers have to reach a quantity that clearly dominates people's everyday lives (VISIBLE)?

Conversely, wouldn't that mean that if the figures are already so high that they directly and frequently affect people's everyday lives, then the authorities have not done their job? Correct?

Doesn't logic dictate that if this is not supposed to be part of people's everyday lives, then the responsible authorities should have an interest in preventing it from becoming part of people's everyday lives in the first place? Because this interest exists in the population, and is therefore also yours?


Regarding the argument that water overcomes any barrier: Water can be stopped by dams, true or false?
There needs to be a scaling question here.

If water can be stopped by barriers, which it clearly can (dam), isn't it wise to regulate the passage so that you can decide whether it comes in drops or in a huge gush? Isn't it correct that you can also regulate the timing by determining how much water flows to the other side and over what defined period of time?

But you say that because it comes through in drops anyway, you could just as well do without the entire dam? What, would you say, is the problem with that statement of yours?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!