• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      She’s a shadow puppet of the last president, and he didn’t do anything to stop the narcos or the murders. Why would you think she’s different?

      • jwt@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You have deduced incorrectly that I have any thought about her whatsoever. I’m merely pointing out that your reasoning is flawed and therefore invalid.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ok. How do you think it’s flawed? The drug lords literally killed over a dozen other candidates, the current president was looking the other way on their business, and this woman worked with that president and is known to have similar views.

          So where’s the flaw, my guy?

          • jwt@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            She is still alive so she must’ve made a deal with the drugs cartel is a classic “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. It is all speculation.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well of course it’s speculation. It doesn’t make it untrue or very unlikely, though. It’s just not a certainty. What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren’t any attempts of her or her family.

              • jwt@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren’t any attempts of her or her family.

                This means precisely nothing, as explained by the fallacy mentioned before.

                It doesn’t make it untrue or very unlikely, though

                But you called it ‘probably’ though, which is on the complete other end of the spectrum from ‘very unlikely’… (aside from it being very unlikely to me, if all I have to go on is unrelated events, someone not being dead, and nothing else)