Saturday, January 16, 2016

Blowback: Begging the Question/Petitio Principii and Circular Reasoning

Blowback is a logical fallacy. Blowback assumes the conclusion in it's premise.
It is faulty logic.  I've written about the use of  faulty logic previously and it's promotion as a means of deception. Refresh or read for the first time at the link directly below. I've included the final paragraphs from the previous post!

 The logical fallacy of “blowback”. Intoxication with the blowback mind virus

"Either way? - We have a problem with those we allow to lead us and it is not incompetence. It is evil. Pure evil, manifesting itself in the most horrific anti-human activities imaginable then hiding their criminality behind spin. To break free of this toxic, evil, psychopathic leadership we need to first rid ourselves of this blowback mind virus. Detox or cleanse it from our own brain and stop infecting others with this intoxicant!

Intoxicant- Anything taken into a body by one mean or another that produces a condition of diminished mental and physical ability, hyperexcitability, or stupefaction"

I've noticed the blowback meme getting much use the last week and it's worrisome.

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim.



  1. Hi Penny

    Just a few comments on your new web design/background. As an artist I am highly sensitive to the emotional responses to artwork. Consequently, I find your background disturbing...but perhaps it's a good thing if you want to wake up your readers. To me, it looks like blood stains...mixed with other bodily fluids. It is somewhat distracting from your message. It is a risky choice of design but I can understand you're wanting to have a new design completely different from what's gone before. Like another reader will take some getting used to. It certainly is unique and distinctive.


    1. Wow, GC!

      And hear I was seeing a somewhat ethereal water colour, sort of a riot of blooms in the sunlight in abstraction

      along this line

      or this
      I realize any change is initially jarring because it does not fit into the brain pathways already used/created, hence it forces one to create a new pattern or path of recognition- eventually it will simply fade into the background....

      Just as the old one did

  2. btw: GC any thoughts on the use of the 'blowback' meme
    I abhor it and will not use it because it is a CIA coined meme to distract from their evil doing. I've no wish to give cover to any evil doing. Also,since it is flawed logic
    it should not be employed by anyone as a matter of fact.

    Far too many media outlets (alt and msm) were claiming blowback wrt to the bombing in Turkey- When that was nothing of the sort- part of the destabilization and the targeting of German citizens, by NATO, was quite plausible for many reasons (as mentioned in my previous post)

  3. Hi Penny:

    Re my thoughts on your new web design...yes, form should take second place to content. Here is an idea for a design for you...based on a post you did over Christmas. I always refer back to nature as you also have in your "tulip" design of course:

    Owls are wise and fierce and also, I think the Snowy Owl should be named as the National Bird of Canada.

    As for the "blow back" are right. This concept, like others, has been hijacked by the perps and used for calculated, multi-pronged disinformation (aka baffle 'em with bullsh!t).

  4. one more link...this time some "snowy owl" wallpaper

    and then I will MYOB.

    Re "blowback". I do think Putin was correct when he asked the West to consider the broader repercussions of their hegemonic activities. At the UN last September, for instance, he asked "Do they even know what they have done?" Blowback can be a matter of creating chaos in an intended target...which raises concerns amongst allies about implications...intended or unintended...such as mass migrations to Europe of Syrians who have been rendered homeless due to US/Israel/Saudi proxy warfare (ISIS). Blowback doesn't necessarily happen to the perpetrator...but could happen to other entities...who THEN retaliate on the isolating and abandoning them. Taking into consideration whether the states are able to isolate and/or abandon...if they are vassal states, like all NATO states...they may not have the ability to do this overtly...however, over time, they may, covertly, form alternate alliancess. I would use the analogy of water in nature always finding a way to flow downhill.


    1. When Putin said that I figured he was being rhetorical?

    2. Hmm... no he wasn't being rhetorical. I listened to the speech without the interpreter since they always do exact word interpretation as opposed to giving you the concept he was trying to say. In Russian it was more like asking "do you even have a clue what you have created?" That takes on a different meaning - it can be applied to their chaos around the world as well as to the creation of different terrorist groups.
      It's subtle but when you understand the impression he was trying to convey it added a whole new dimension to his speech.

      By the way, just caught this story about a Dutch guy getting arrested for fighting with YPG last year after he returned home:

    3. Thanks SP for clarifying- much is lost in the translation. And thanks for the link :)

    4. What? Sort of convoluted I think. I just do not get your point?

    5. The above was directed to gc's comment, I wish to clarify.

    6. Hi Charles: I'll leave it to greencrow to clarify. I am loathe to interpret someone else's thinking, I'd just botch it up- hopefully GC will stop back by

  5. Hi GC

    "As for the "blow back" are right. This concept, like others, has been hijacked by the perps and used for calculated, multi-pronged disinformation (aka baffle 'em with bullsh!t)"

    Blowback was created or coined by the CIA it was intended and is used for all the reasons you say and I like "baffle them with bullsh!t" :) - I usually say dazzle them with bullsh!t but will borrow baffle if you won't mind?

    However "blowback" was never hijacked by the perps, rather it was created specifically by the perps for the reasons you have mentioned.

    "Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the (claimed) unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is used beyond its purpose as intended by the party supplying ..."

    The CIA created a logically fallacious terminology, intentionally,employing begging the question or circular reasoning, as a cover for their own destabilization operations.

  6. RE: Owls- I love them :)
    They are beautiful, but, fierce. Very fierce.