Defamation: Life & Style, And Rhetoric Hyperbole Case

In chapter 7 of his book, Lynch addresses various opposing viewpoints that are centered on the idea that truth is a type of fiction and does not really exist. He immediately goes on to defend the existence of truth with claims that philosophers seldom deny the existence of truth and that the question “What is truth?” is simply pointless because truth “has no nature that needs explaining.” The Nietzchean view of truth is based on the belief that truth is not deeply normative or good. Lynch points out the flaw of this theory in that it hints at the unsatisfying logic “truth is worth caring about therefore the pursuit of truth must be blind relative to other things.” As a counterclaim, Lynch believes that people must balance the pursuit of one

His argument goes something like this: To reason from induction, one must have “found certain observed cases true that will also be true in unobserved cases.” According to Stace, this also fails because there are no observed cases of an unobserved object. Though this is true, this does not give Stace enough to rule out the method of induction altogether. Induction, simply put, is anything that is not deduction. Stace only addresses enumerative induction and ignores other types of induction—more specifically, inference to the best conclusion. If we were to use this form of induction, we would end up ... ... middle of paper ... ...ess my critique of sense data.

Henry feels that these three propositions are true and that the Skeptics themselves follow these rules. Thus skepticism is incorrect and we can have knowledge. Skeptics disagree with Henry since they believe we can act with only belief. According to Plato knowledge is a justified true belief(Nozick 1981,170). Skeptics believe that is impossible to verify truth, thus we can have no knowledge since do not have truth(Henry 2002,101-102).

When the right has control of it, government IS the problem, as in starting illegal wars, illegal wiretapping (Judge just ruled on that one yesterday), massive theft from the middle and lower classes in favor of the super-rich, Guys who tout Family Values having gay sex in airports, ... ... middle of paper ... ...machine disguised as a news station. That makes you a Republican. Hell, if I were a conservative, I would be mad as hell! Not at the liberals and moderates, who after all have only been pushing for the things that liberals and moderates always push for, but at the conservative "leaders" who have betrayed the very essence of conservatism. I would be angry as hell at the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world who cynically manipulate both their listeners and their party for monetary gain, and for fame.

This is antithetical to the argument of skepticism as skepticism's foundation is proven by a lack of proof. The antithesis of skepticism would state that something can be observed and known perfectly through empirical research. To counter skepticism, it is necessary to provide an example of an object known perfectly – qualitatively, quantitatively and free from subjectivity and perceptive distortion. As we can only prove the imperfections inherent in empirical observation, we can only observe that we lack the means to accurately learn the entire, exact truth of an object. Hence, skepticism is valid and true.

Saul Kripke and W.V. Quine argue that there are no facts about meaning. Perhaps their strongest argument for their rejection of this claim is through their accounts that facts are determinate by rules and that meaning is lost within translation. Kripke depends on facts about rules for his skeptical solution for Wittgenstein’s account that every course of action is made in accord with a rule. Quine basis his argument on the use of translation; he claims that there are no facts about meaning because there is no correct translation of one sentence into another.

After learning of this outrageous verdict, I immediately questioned whether or not the tobacco industry should even be held responsible for the damaging effects and deaths caused by those who chose to smoke cigarettes. There is no denying the fact that tobacco companies have at times, been dishonest and deceitful. In 1994 there was a “parade of tobacco bosses denying under oath that nicotine can be addictive and harmful…when their own products have been carrying labels warning about their harmfulness and addictiveness.” (Jonas 2). However, the question remains. Does this prove them responsible for the approximate 430,000 smokers that die each year?

The Adelphia Communications Scandal John Rigas started Adelphia Communcations in 1952 with the help of two partners, but soon bought it out. The company was taken public in 1986 and as a result would have to abide by the regulations of the SEC. By the early 2000s, Adelphia was one of the top cable companies in the United States. This was the peak of a corporation that would begin a downward spiral over the first half of 2002 as a result of fraudulent use of the company’s assets at its’ shareholders expense. Members of the Rigas family drove the company to bankruptcy through rampant spending of company funds on personal expenditures (Barlaup, 2009).

The article stated Gillian and her boyfriend were having sex in a parked ... ... middle of paper ... ... defame people. Just by looking through the daily paper and celebrity magazines one can see a huge amount of defamatory material. Celebrities are more of a threat to journalists than those of modest means eg. A journalist may not hesitate in defaming a person on income support as there is little they could do with their limited funds. Newspapers often have to consider whether they can afford not to publish a story, a scoop on a celebrity may sell millions of papers so they stand to make money even if they are taken to court and have to pay damages.

Musicians are at the head of the charge aimed against Napster for the exploitation of their music. A panel of U.S circuit of appeals that are a panel of judges ruled that Napster is in a violation of copyright infringements. It is a way to receive music without actually purchasing it and some many companies feel for the loss of revenues Napster should pay royalties or seize to exist. The RIAA, which represents many record companies, filed a federal lawsuit against Napster just months after the song trading website began in 1999. The lawsuit claims that Napster could rob the music industry of billions of dollars in lost profits.