The book is a satire directed at human behaviour, particularly in regards to human priorities to choose between acts of humanitarianism and greed. The author notes that politics indeed is part and parcel of life but no where is it so vividly portrayed than in education and at the work place to satisfy human obsession with greed. Then he admitted, I cannot deny my role in that but that cannot justify it. Perhaps, there is somebody out there who can justify my role in human's obsession with greed and that person may provide an answer to the question that influenced the writing of this book. Finding somebody to answer that question below the author claims is the reason for writing the book. The question: How can we humans not see that it is fair to treat others the way we would like others to treat us? Indeed somebody has answered the question. Find out who that person is and her answer in the book. Dedication: This book is dedicated to my parents and my friends who are no longer with us to share my thoughts with me: My parents Mr. Yoon Choy Lian, the founder of Mandarin Court Restaurant in Ottawa Canada Mrs. Celia Kirlew, the wife of my friend Robert Kirlew Mr. Monte Christie, professor of Management Algonquin College Mr. Zoran Solajic the husband of Maja tennis colleagues Mrs. Carolyn Dixon former employee, Algonquin College Mr. Michael Bencina, a tennis colleague Mr. Des. Perkins a tennis colleague Mrs. Sylvianne Morin Mr. Jeremy Symko a tennis colleague My Appreciation: I am indeed indebted to my friends Aldo Cimpello and Rachael Murphy who have taken the time to critique the manuscript on my request.

The Death of Human Logic

Human Logic on TrialBy Leonard Amattey

AuthorHouse

Copyright © 2009 Leonard Amattey
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4389-2928-6

Contents

Chapter One: The Summary of the Case Against Humans..........................................................................17Chapter Two: A Campaign For Recognition As The Angel of Human Salvation: The ASAFAM Story....................................103Chapter Three: The Face of Human Greed.......................................................................................125Chapter Four: The Animal Kingdom Takeover Plan...............................................................................146Chapter Five: The Settings of the Court of Supremacy.........................................................................173Chapter Six: The Trial.......................................................................................................182Chapter Seven: Religion as an Agent of Human Greed...........................................................................197Chapter Eight: Politics as an Agent of Human Greed...........................................................................209Chapter Nine: The Blind Images of Faith......................................................................................229Chapter Ten: The Complexity of Making Choices in Life Compared to Statistical Process of Decision Making.....................279

Chapter One

The Summary of the Case Against Humans

Humans are on trial accused by the Animal Kingdom with Acts of brutality against each other and against the other inhabitants of the Planet Earth.

Whose Acts of Kindness to each other and to the other members of the Planet Earth do you think are more credible - Animals or Humans?

In a conversation with your conscious, you must take a stand and express an opinion on the above question based on your experiences with your own conducts and intentions sharing the Planet Earth with others. Otherwise, failure to express an opinion, somebody else will answer that question for you by default and the cost of your silence will be regrettable when the court of supremacy delivers its verdict, in the case, "Humans vrs The Animal Kingdom.

I put it to you that by your failure to express an opinion on the previous question, you may not either be equipped to express an opinion on the statement below.

"Of all the known human tragedies, it is not death that mystifies me the most. It is the inhuman treatment of humans by humans. Perhaps as for death, it is God's cure for the atrocities of humans inhumanity. And yet humans claim they love each other. The fact is, no human ever loves without a reason and the reasons are almost always selfish".

The above statement sets the stage to prepare you with the frame of mind necessary for you to face the challenges pose by the allegation before the court which you may have to defend.

HUMANS vs. THE ANIMAL KINGDOM

The Trial Court: The Court of Supremacy

How can we Humans not see that it is fair to treat others the way we would like others to treat us? This is a question asked by an eighty-nine-year-old woman two years before her death.

Does this not complement the definition of Logic? she asked.

But, she admits, one must also face the fact that criminal and wicked intentions cannot be expected to submit to fairness and logic.

So, it is prudent not to take fairness for granted, not even with your closest family members and the best of friends. For, even they can be corrupted by power, money, and sex and do the unexpected by submitting to wickedness and unfair practices to satisfy their thirst for Greed.

Eighty-nine-year-old Mary Charles is the brain child of the case against Humans filed at the Court of Supremacy by the Animal Kingdom to protest Human inhumanity to Human and to the rest of the inhabitants of the Planet Earth.

The eighty-nine-year-old woman's experience with the practices of Humans is the foundation of the Claim made by the Animal Kingdom asking the Court of Supremacy to disqualify Humans from governing the world and invest the world governance authority in the Animal Kingdom before the atrocities of Human governance destroy the Planet Earth. A case in point in regard to destruction of the Planet Earth claim in the lawsuit is the documentary by Al Gore, former vice president of the United States, "An Inconvenient Truth."

Even though "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary is not connected to the Animal Kingdom's lawsuit, it is expected that the vice president of the United States may be issued a subpoena to appear at the trial as a prosecution witness.

According to documents before the court, the Animal Kingdom claims that it possesses the capacity to do a better job governing the world compared to the track record of Humans.

The court presided over by GOD agrees with the Animal Kingdom's claim that the Planet Earth can be better governed than the track record of Humans.

Nevertheless, as you will soon discover, judgment by the court will be delayed. The court, after hearing all the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, will decide to reserve judgment citing the following reason for delay in handing down its decision, called "THE JUDGMENT DAY," which is characterized as Humans' worst Challenge since invested with the powers to rule the world. The delay may not appear to favor any party at this point, but, believe me the wait to hear the judgment will be worth it.

The court cites the following reason for the delay in delivering judgment.

The fact that the case is a class action brought against all Humans by groups of Animals and other inhabitants of the Planet Earth renders the case more complex to adjudicate.

The court argues that to be guilty of a crime, Intent to commit the crime must be proved.

But Intentions are products of thinking, and without access to a Brain, thinking cannot take place.

The court notes that Groups or Classes of people do not possess a Collective Brain, which is necessary to collectively form Intent to commit a crime.

God's intentions are clear when HE created both Humans and Animals with individual brains, the court notes.

If God wanted groups to think for individuals, God would have made a collective brain for groups.

In conclusion, the court notes that perceived group brutalities are the products of brutalities engineered by the evil intentions of individuals

The brutalities cited by the prosecution in the evidence presented to the court, are either engineered by individuals and executed by individuals or engineered by individuals and executed by group decisions. Groups cannot form opinions.

Perceived group brutalities are conceived by individuals in the group to satisfy their appetite for greed.

Would it be fair to blame all Germans for Hitler's role in the atrocities of world war 11 because Hitler is a German? Or would it be fair to blame all Americans for Charles Manson's 1969 Helter Skelter atrocities because Manson is an American?

It is therefore the opinion of the court that individuals rather than Humans as a group should be held accountable to their respective Actions and Intentions.

Accordingly the court has ordered that, in addition to the statements of Defense filed by the Accused, opportunities must be provided to individual Humans to prepare writs in defense of...