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