Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 1730591, member: 29643&quot;]Did you even read the paper or did you just decide &quot;I&#039;m going to play the old &#039;post hoc ergo propter hoc&#039; card, since I don&#039;t agree with the causality.&quot; I didn&#039;t author the paper, but the individual who did looked at other potential causes to minimize the incidence of correlation without causality.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, you say that you want a &quot;reputable&quot; study done on this. Who would you consider a reputable source? Does the document disagreeing with your opinion lead the author to a state of ill-repute? You&#039;re essentially claiming that the laws are irrelevant due to argumentum ad ignoratium in this event, since you&#039;re unwilling to accept that someone who discovered and articulated a correlation (and established causality through negation) could be of any value. This also argues (to a lesser extent) ad hominem on the basis of what one constitutes as reputable. If the study is produced by the government, you&#039;d argue that it&#039;s biased to represent their position. There&#039;s no way to establish causation for you, as you&#039;d be unwilling accept any proven methodology as holding any merit.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, your comment about the individual who collected $1000 face of 90% silver US coinage is fallacious, since the bill clearly stated that an affidavit of ownership would suffice.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in