• jwt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    You have deduced incorrectly that I have any thought about her whatsoever. I’m merely pointing out that your reasoning is flawed and therefore invalid.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ok. How do you think it’s flawed? The drug lords literally killed over a dozen other candidates, the current president was looking the other way on their business, and this woman worked with that president and is known to have similar views.

      So where’s the flaw, my guy?

      • jwt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        She is still alive so she must’ve made a deal with the drugs cartel is a classic “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. It is all speculation.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well of course it’s speculation. It doesn’t make it untrue or very unlikely, though. It’s just not a certainty. What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren’t any attempts of her or her family.

          • jwt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren’t any attempts of her or her family.

            This means precisely nothing, as explained by the fallacy mentioned before.

            It doesn’t make it untrue or very unlikely, though

            But you called it ‘probably’ though, which is on the complete other end of the spectrum from ‘very unlikely’… (aside from it being very unlikely to me, if all I have to go on is unrelated events, someone not being dead, and nothing else)