essentialsaltes
Stranger in a Strange Land
- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,523
- 36,827
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Non sequiturNon distributio medii
However, it is an argumentum ad odium
Upvote
0
Non sequiturNon distributio medii
Sure, but that badness stems from aiding and abetting a crime. The payment (which has an innocuous explanation - a loan repayment) is entirely a red herring.If the President was complicit with James in that act; it might be bad for the President.
NonsenseNon sequitur
That too.However, it is an argumentum ad odium
This is conjecture on your part. Oh, and Comer does have evidence of criminality. He's gathering more too.Sure, but that badness stems from aiding and abetting a crime. The payment (which has an innocuous explanation - a loan repayment) is entirely a red herring.
If Comer had evidence of criminality, he could be presenting that instead of presenting innocuous payments that might be not-innocuous if only there were a crime involved.
Suppose James robs a bank and later uses some of the money to pay Joe back on Tuesday for the hamburger he mooched off him last week.This is conjecture on your part.
Why didn't he show us any at his first pre-impeachment hearing?Oh, and Comer does have evidence of criminality.
Sure, he will be presenting it next Wednesday....This is conjecture on your part. Oh, and Comer does have evidence of criminality. He's gathering more too.
Sure, here's a genuine non distributio medii for you to ponder:Nonsense
Your analogy is a red herring.Suppose James robs a bank and later uses some of the money to pay Joe back on Tuesday for the hamburger he mooched off him last week.
A receipt for the hamburger repayment is a red herring with respect to the bank robbery. It doesn't implicate either James or Joe. It's a red herring.
I see you did ponder my example in #27. Great job creating your own example!Here is a better one:
Suppose that Joe's family sets up a bunch of shell corporations, like criminals do to cover their tracks;
P1 is a false premise too.Sure, here's a genuine non distributio medii for you to ponder:
P1: All money laundering involves moving money among several different bank accounts.
P2: The Biden family finances involved moving money among several different bank accounts.
C: Therefore the Biden family is money laundering
You have a great gift for presenting logical fallacies.I see you did ponder my example in #27. Great job creating your own example!
P1: Criminal organizations set up shell companies.
P2: The Biden family set up shell companies.
C: Therefore the Biden family is a criminal organization.
Great, your argument requires an unstated assumption that the Biden family is a criminal organization, and your 'conclusion' is a suspicion.P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations.
C: Therefore it raises suspicions.
P1 is a false premise.P1: Banks flag transactions for suspicious activity.
P2: Banks flagged the transactions of James and Hunter, over 150 times, for suspicious activity.
C: James and Hunter were involved in suspicious activity.
False.P1 is a false premise.
Banks generate 'suspicious activity reports' for transactions over $10,000 whether they are actually suspicious or not.
No it doesn't; but you are free to make that assumption.Great, your argument requires an unstated assumption that the Biden family is a criminal organization,
Sporfle. It's awfully kind of those drug lords to report their movement of giant stacks of cash to the banks.False.
- Keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments;
- File reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount); and
A check is not a cash transaction.
Certainly it doesNo it doesn't; but you are free to make that assumption.
Well that point seems to have zinged right over your head.P1: When criminal organizations filter money through multiple shell corporations; it raises suspicions.
P2: The Biden family filtered money through multiple shell corporations.
C: Therefore it raises suspicions.
By P1: Suspicions are raised when criminal organizations do this.
So your conclusion only holds if "The Biden family" is subject to P1. This would necessitate "The Biden family" being a criminal organization, which has not been premised or demonstrated.
Honestly, you are non distributio medii-ing all over the place here.
John Dillinger wore a size 10 shoe, and is a suspicious character.
Joe Biden wears a size 10 shoe.
Therefore Joe Biden is a suspicious character.
Is that even English?Sporfle.
Per WIktionary, yes.Is that even English?
Whether it did or it didn't, the form of your syllogism is faulty.Well that point seems to have zinged right over your head.