April 7th, 2018

(no subject)

Yet another one of the numerous repetitions of the same cui bono argument:

The reasoning is totally backwards. The argument, as applied, goes like this: X had no apparent reason to do this; therefore, X didn't do it. While a much more convincing argument would look like this: Has X done it? If yes, then reasons aren't really important (but figuring them out may be of some interest for the curious). If not, then reasons (or the lack thereof) have no relevance whatsoever.