-Removed-If I understood robbie correctly on page 133, if someone is accused of something, denies it, and asks for some evidence, the accused person is committing a 'logical fallacy' called 'appeal to ignorance'. So there you go. That's the supposed need for "evidence" sorted for you.
Originally posted by FMFYes they do have a child like quality which an acidic old crusty burger like you would find difficult to appreciate.😵
I had a look at some of your posts - and those of others - on the Clans Forum a couple of times a year or so ago. You may post like a 16 year old here for the most part, but you posted like a 13 year old there. No. Quite right. Not interested. 😀
Originally posted by FMFYou committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attempt to exonerate yourself of the accusation was clearly logically fallacious because you may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.
If I understood robbie correctly on page 133, if someone is accused of something, denies it, and asks for some evidence, the accused person is committing a 'logical fallacy' called 'appeal to ignorance'. So there you go. That's the supposed need for "evidence" sorted for you.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Child" like? I don't think so. Daft and unpleasant and desperately unfunny, more like, which are not words I would associate with 9 out of 10 children. I'll settle for "pubescent like" if you're happy with that. 😉
Yes they do have a child like quality which an acidic old crusty burger like you would find difficult to appreciate.😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAsking for evidence that backs up an accusation is not a "logical fallacy". Stop with the daft "pubescent like" nonsense.
You committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attem ...[text shortened]... may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis would be the logic used by "lawyers" to smear or prosecute dissidents under dictatorships.
You committed a logical fallacy when you alleged through an indirect question that as there was no evidence of your alleged women hating and you could not be guilty of it. This was the intent of your question. As was pointed out to you, lack of evidence in itself is not proof of the veracity of a claim and is an appeal to ignorance. Thus your attem ...[text shortened]... may still be an alleged women hater and lack on concrete evidence cannot be used to absolve you.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYes a child like innocence unadulterated by cynicism pure in their logic and reasoning, quality through and through! The likes of which a dour faced crusty ol' hack like you could only dream of in his wildest imaginations even with the aid of conscious altering substances.😵
"Child" like? I don't think so. Daft and unpleasant and desperately unfunny, more like, which are not words I would associate with 9 out of 10 children. I'll settle for "pubescent like" if you're happy with that. 😉