(December 28, 2018 at 9:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Out of curiosity, what logical fallacy can you identify in the quoted post? Additionally, what's the problem with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?
I never asserted that I would provide evidence. Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence. His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.
To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively. If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable. If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.
