View Single Post
Old 10-15-2019, 08:17 PM
drad dog is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,288
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
But here is an Occam's razor argument. I just came up with it quickly. Show me where I am wrong though.

Occam's razor says the argument with the least assumptions is usually best. My Occam's razor argument, as briefly as possible, involving myriad crimes Trump is supposed to have committed:

Trump has committed illegal acts. He believes Putin has information on these acts. He acts in favor of Putin so Putin won't expose him.


Trump has committed illegal acts. Putin has information on these acts. Putin communicates to Trump to act in his favor, that is, he is actively blackmailing him. Trump acts the way he does so Putin won't expose him.

The first case is therefore the most plausible. ETA: Now, mind you, this is just an example based on other "stuff" people have mentioned, namely that Trump has committed crimes. To be clear, I don't necessarily believe he has.
Occams razor does not allow two results. It may reveal insufficient facts but not two answers.

Here you come down on that donald is more likely innocent than guilty of direct control. This is a big thing. It's not just a notion wafting by. It is the position of the OP, who is you. Why deny it? The example should stand until you replace it. I think it was a good example.

You are asuming dts innocence way beyond where occam left off.