quote:
I think people here are logically very sloppy and don't mind calling something logical that just isn't, and insisting on it when it doesn't make a lick of sense. Robin was attacked for his reasoning as not being logical at all and that was indefensible in my opinion. If his logic is faulty in places, that should be demonstrable, but the opponents' logic was deplorable, but there is no way to prove that in this environment of bias where sometimes absurd things are said with a great deal of aggression.
Now hold on, the reason why Robin's lack of logic was criticised was because he was specifically claiming to have a sound logical argument. Now if he really had one that should have been demonstrable. And Robin couldn't do it.
And if the flaws in Robin's arguments should have been demonstrable, the same holds for his opponents arguments. Yet you say that that can't be done.
o