C’mon bro. You’re better than that. It’s very poor circumstantial evidence. And an argument that relies on it would be a bad argument. I mean really. Didn’t you major in logic in college?
I think it’s funny you’re explaining how evidence and court cases work. We know. So try this on for size. Say victim ‘V’ is found coughing blood and having seizures. The state says that it’s entirely in line with a certain poison ‘P’. They move to arrest defendant ‘D’. The defense claims in court that another guy ‘X’ had a motive to frame D and the defendant couldn’t have been the attacker because V is a really really obese guy and it would be impossible for him to be poisoned. Now that would be a bad argument. Doesn’t mean that D isn’t innocent. He may be. Doesn’t mean the state’s evidence of poison is good. It may not be. It does mean the defense offered up a very poor argument to the jury.
Yes. I’ll just quote myself instead of re-writing it. I already replied:
I have noticed all the good arguments are on one side of the ledger. And certain actually free people have made bad arguments in the past. But what you’re accusing me of doing is begging the question and your primary evidence is that I’m discounting circumstantial evidence. No. I recognize the Soros thing to be bad circumstantial evidence. And I explained why. That doesn’t make me the rube. It doesn’t mean I’m begging the question. I even specifically wrote down what avenues can be explored that could produce good arguments.