There are an infinite number of theories that cannot be proven or disproven. In the absence of any causal evidence your assertion remains irrational. For example I can’t prove you’re not a pedophile. You cant provide me with evidence that disproves you being a pedophile. Yet if I were to make a random assumption that you’re a pedophile remains, that would be irrational.
But absence of proof isn’t proof of absence either, so your insistence that these things have nothing to do with each other is just as unproven as my conjecture.
I made no such insistence. I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe those things are connected. There are and infinite uinebr of potentially connected things. Believing in any of them without evidence is irrational. Since you’re unable to even begin to provide any causal link, you are being irrational.
The evidence I have provided is circumstantial, not causal, I admit that, but it’s certainly better than no evidence at all.
Meanwhile, you’re not providing ANY evidence whatsoever, all you’re doing is reminding me of something I already know and have already admitted.
To put it in simpler terms, what we have is a crime scene and someone’s footprints leading towards and away from it. Does that mean that person did it? No, because we’re missing a murder weapon with their fingerprints on it as well. But I’d say it certainly merits further investigation. Meanwhile, you’re just burying your head in the sand because you’re friends with the suspect and don’t want to see them in jail, but you can’t give them an alibi and you don’t have any proof of their innocence.
To put it in simpler terms, what we have is a crime scene and someone’s footprints leading towards and away from it. Does that mean that person did it?
Literally nothing like this exists in the scenario you’re referring to which is why you have to resort to absurd analogies. You seem incapable of making a rational justification for your assertion.
There are an infinite number of theories that cannot be proven or disproven. In the absence of any causal evidence your assertion remains irrational. For example I can’t prove you’re not a pedophile. You cant provide me with evidence that disproves you being a pedophile. Yet if I were to make a random assumption that you’re a pedophile remains, that would be irrational.
I made no such insistence. I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe those things are connected. There are and infinite uinebr of potentially connected things. Believing in any of them without evidence is irrational. Since you’re unable to even begin to provide any causal link, you are being irrational.
The evidence I have provided is circumstantial, not causal, I admit that, but it’s certainly better than no evidence at all.
Meanwhile, you’re not providing ANY evidence whatsoever, all you’re doing is reminding me of something I already know and have already admitted.
To put it in simpler terms, what we have is a crime scene and someone’s footprints leading towards and away from it. Does that mean that person did it? No, because we’re missing a murder weapon with their fingerprints on it as well. But I’d say it certainly merits further investigation. Meanwhile, you’re just burying your head in the sand because you’re friends with the suspect and don’t want to see them in jail, but you can’t give them an alibi and you don’t have any proof of their innocence.
Literally nothing like this exists in the scenario you’re referring to which is why you have to resort to absurd analogies. You seem incapable of making a rational justification for your assertion.
Removed by mod