XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   "David V."  wrote in message   
   news:RtSdnUN4FOP101OiRVn-jw@sti.net...   
   > I see all you have is ad hominem. Do try better. Chris   
   > claims that two stats are connected yet cannot back that up   
   > in any rational way. Maybe when you guys grow up, you'll   
   > understand. We're dealing with simple, first year,   
   > philosophy. Simply, your conclusion that the two stats are   
   > related is called; Cum hoc ergo propter hoc   
      
   Actually, I never claimed they were connected, which would make you a liar.   
   I only put into question your motives for precluding them to be unrelated.   
   I never made any such claim to them being related.   
      
   > This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The   
   > fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together,   
   > they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it   
   > ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.   
      
   Does quoting Latin make you appear more intellectual elsewhere?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)