New Labour & the BNP: Two Sides Of The Same Zi

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:24 pm

but I'm not arguing on a fallacious basis. i'm saying there's no more commonsense evidence to suggest stpehen lawrence was a drug dealer than rowan williams. there might be something lurking in the police annals about rowan williams' nefarious activities but as far as we know, there's no commonsense reason to assume he's a drug dealer either.

you're not assuming the burden of proof - that's where you're going wrong.

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:26 pm

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:33 pm

*sigh*

let's try this one more time.

Rowan Williams is a drug dealer. There. That's my allegation. There's now exactly the same amount of information in the public domain to suggest the archbishop of canterbury deals crack as Stephen Lawrence.

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:35 pm

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:41 pm

at whatever level, truth is truth. there's now an allegation that williams is a drug dealer.

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:43 pm

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:46 pm

How convenient.

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:47 pm

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:01 pm

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:22 pm

to you, perhaps. not to anyone who actually understands the concept.

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance).

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any."

by **Barnacle Bill** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:22 pm

All I was saying was: how could you accuse Griffin of being a liar until you’ve heard his point? I think that was the point Buttons was making.

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:25 pm

I don't think I did. I was saying the suggestion lawrence might be a drug dealer because noone has proven that he is not is an argumentum ad ignoratium. which it is.

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:25 pm

by **mogadishu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:28 pm

buttons wrote:
mogadishu wrote:to you, perhaps. not to anyone who actually understands the concept.

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance).

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any."

Well,Barnacle got the point.

that wasn't really a point he could get, because I don't think i said griffin was a liar. i said repeatedly that suggesting that lawrence might be a drug dealer is an argumentum ad ignorantium. just like suggesting the archbishop might be a drug dealer because noone has been able to prove that he isn't. it's a fallacy - a nonsense.

by **buttons** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:29 pm

New Labour & the BNP: Two Sides Of The Same Zi

Who is online