SDSU Aztec wrote:
Seven11 wrote:
You are not being logical there. Stating that it is likely meant that "jesseriley" considered the evidence at hand and concluded that it was more likely than not that this happened in this particular case. That is an entirely different process and set of facts than looking at one particular family (one's own) and concluding that this is the way they would act.
You can try to support your views without making completely illogical statements. Please try to do so.
What "evidence at hand"? "They must have known" is not evidence.
I am neither supporting nor disagreeing with "jesseriley". So you will have to address that question to him regarding what evidence he considered.
What I AM doing is pointing out that you made an entirely illogical statement.
"Stating that it is likely meant that "jesseriley" considered the evidence at hand and concluded that it was more likely than not that this happened in this particular case. That is an entirely different process and set of facts than looking at one particular family (one's own) and concluding that this is the way they would act.
You can try to support your views without making completely illogical statements. Please try to do so."
Again, if you can try to argue logically that would be helpful to all, including yourself.