Evidence to Convict?

[LadyForCamus]

Aaaand there it is. This is the point in the "discussion" where RR attempts to conflate scientific evidence with testimony. We have done this as nauseum with you, dude.

---

It wouldn't of took 20 some pages, if I didn't have to keep repeating myself (which is probably my fault for indulging people as much as I did).  Why is it so difficult to understand that I may just be trying to gather what peoples different opinions are about the subject.

becsuse your OWN words in this thread are evidence that you have other motivations you refuse to admit to.  As quoted in the very post you are responding to.

You say that I left you no choice in the two options - how do you figure that?  You where free to choose, and if you think the evidence was not sufficient or there was no evidence; then the option of "no" would follow... that is your choice.

Correct.  False dichotomy.  As I have explained above.  You know what a false dichotomy is,
right?

not demanding or arguing for a certain outcome.  I do find it interesting, and out of the norm, but I wasn't making an argument.  And if you want to expand, and offer an opinion that it is either not sufficient or not evidence at all, then anyone was free to do that as well.

Are you guys going to tell seriously tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me?

Lol, no, that doesn't sound like you're arguing for a certain outcome at all!  Your words speak for themselves.

As to wanting everyone to stop saying that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence.  Sure I do... do you not think you are justified in your position and think that others should feel the same?   However I wasn't saying that here. I wasn't attempting to get people to make that shift.  In light of the questions and the scenario they re-evaluate their positions then I think that is good.  If they re-evaluate and come to the same position, that is good also. I didn't give them any reason to change their position, but they are thinking about it. And even if they didn't really think about it, that is OK too, because all I asked for was their opinion.

More flapping.  You're trying to censor and draw lines in the conversation by refusing to discuss the topic in full, including the spectrum of types of claims people offer testimony as evidence for.  Like the supernatural.  It's relevant and pertinent to the subject matter no matter how much you bleat that it's not.

no one took me up on the offer to make a thread to discuss (apparently that was some great thing to ask of people)  I was thinking that I may.  If nothing else, people can see what the difference is, between making an inquiry, and presenting an argument for my position.
However I am learning, I am going to just start ignoring; appeals to motive, arguments attacking the person rather than the proposition, and also those who don't really say anything but just re-state their position with more insistence.

Oh, please.  I was one of the few people actually attempting to engage with you instead of slinging vulgar insults, but if you're going to place limits on what you're willing to talk about (and for suspect reasons), then that's NOT honest, and I'm not going to waste my time.