Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

you are totally confused and your response is irrelevant. the logic used in debating in either is one and the same... if you can demonstrate that a different system of logic is being used, then have at it, otherwise just shut up. repeating your assertion over an over does not make it true.

again tu stultus es... q.e.d.

No, it isn't. All the evidence and all the logic may point to the culprit and the jury may decide not guilty. The jury's decision (the decision of the peers) constitutes the thruth not what the truth objectively is. Educate yourself first about these differences and then come here to argue anout logic.

[WilbyInebriated]

Even the finding of clear evidence can be  dismissed in court if the finding wasn't done according to certain rules of reasonable grounds for the search.

of course it can be. but that does not dismiss the validity of the logic used... or make it of a different type. you should really let go of this strawman fallacy you are now using...

again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.

you can have the last word omni. i won't be responding to your replies unless you post a cogent argument...

[Omnibus]

i would imagine so. i doubt he came to a thread titled "Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev" to hear your ridiculous notions on logical fallacies... 

You have it all in reverse. You are the one trying to impose your ridiculous notions in logical falacies. You started that senseless discussion and I'm trying to educate you a little no matter how impenetrable your system of confused notions is.

[Omnibus]

of course it can be. but that does not dismiss the validity of the logic used... or make it of a different type. you should really let go of this strawman fallacy you are now using...

again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.

you can have the last word omni. i won't be responding to your replies unless you post a cogent argument...

Not so. The logic in court proceedings here is specific and it is geared to the fact that the goal is not to find the objective truth but to convince a group of peers. That logic differs from the logic used in scientific debates where the goal is solely the objective truth with no societal interferences. I told you that already but you're not hearing it that's why I have to repeat it.

[WilbyInebriated]

No, it isn't. All the evidence and all the logic may point to the culprit and the jury may decide not guilty. The jury's decision (the decision of the peers) constitutes the thruth not what the truth objectively is. Educate yourself first about these differences and then come here to argue anout logic.

you are confusing 'rules of judgement' or 'rules of sentencing' with rules of logic. logic is logic. the fact that juries have sentencing guidelines is not a substantiation that a different logic is being used.

again tu stultus es... q.e.d