The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on November 15, 2015, 08:26:11 AM
-
malaise (134,667 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027346924
What's this I'm hearing about false passports?
I always start out with who benefits from this.
That is all for now.
malaise tries for a CT vaguely. fails.
GoneFishin (3,643 posts)
4. +1,000,000. Always start with who has the most to gain, including the very big picture.
we'll see where this one goes.
-
Malaise is a DUmmie, therefore an idiot. (the terms are interchangeable).
-
Stoooopid question ... to what context is Mal's post referring? "Syrian" "refugees"? Some/all of the terrorists who carried out the Paris attacks?
:banghead: :thatsright: Or is Mal ignoring the obvious in either case? The obvious ones who benefit from terrorists and/or infiltrators getting into EuroLand countries on false passports are the terror groups who sent them. :thatsright: :banghead:
-
Response to malaise (Original post)Sun Nov 15, 2015, 10:00 AM
Igel (22,795 posts)
6. "Cui bono?" is an okay place to start out,
but after about two steps it's a lousy place to still be.
It assumes omniscience. You look at who benefits and that may point at the guilty party.
But how do they benefit?
Monetarily? By destroying a competitor for a potential sex partner? Disposing of the woman that is enticing a man and keeping him from distracting another woman who's competing for your job? By making the voices in your head happy? To right a historical wrong, whether the loss of Andalusia or because Johnny called you a bad word in 3rd grade and now that you're 68 and a bit senile it's time to exact your revenge? To teach sinners their true place? Or maybe just to balance the communal scales of collective justice in a tit-for-tat sort of revenge calculus?
Lots of innocent people were sent to jail because of this. It's an okay place to start your abductive reasoning, but abduction isn't really logic and has no truth value. It's handy for producing hypotheses, but proves nothing to those who look past innuendo and confirmation bias as the ultimate arbiters of truth.
"Cui bono?" may point to the guilty party.
But "may" entails "may not," and that is logic
Primitive fails at trying to sound smart, comes off as babbling weirdo.