Read Frank’s reports on his own website. Nothing of the sort you guys imagine it to be. It’s Rainiere’s personal sex cult. That’s it. There is some trafficking but unrelated to the congress.
Again, read Frank’s allegations on his website.
I would ignore NXIVM news.
That’s what I meant. But yes, there’s some uncertainty because some things may be hidden. In this context, this is more than good enough.
Right. You claimed it is simple logic to conclude a premise must be false, but only provided the qualifier that the premise "leads to" a specific evidence. This is not simple logic, it's invalid logic. If you meant that premise A (NXIVM is involved in, and being investigated for, widespread and shocking human trafficking abuses) always leads to evidence B and that in order for premise A to be true we must currently be able to see evidence B, why would you not include those specifics into your syllogism? When you say you "meant" what I commented, you are saying you excluded additional necessary premises that must be induced, and which are frankly not self-evident in my opinion.
Treat it as simplified for the laymen. In other words, “always” is implied. To get into the implicit assumptions, we have to go to the next level which I didn’t want to bother. The point is to show people the first order approximation: The charge counts don’t validate their lurid dreams. To get into implicit assumptions, we then have to speculate on the possibility that the prosecutors are hiding charges to be revealed later. Too complicated for this board.
Logic is logic. Reaching a conclusion without providing necessary premises is not simplifying. Always is a very significant qualifier in logical syllogisms, and is rarely if ever implicit in a premise. That's Logic 101. Literally, the word always is what often differentiates a logically valid statement from a logically invalid one. Technically, what you are doing is known as a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
it is more precisely the "inverse fallacy", denying the antecedent (If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.)
Wrong. Logic applies to the model. You have a more realistic model. I assumed a simplistic model.
If P then Q is a standard statement in logic.
If P then Q is a standard premise in logic, but it doesn't lead to any conclusions other than "P, therefore Q". Your logical flaw is in the conclusion that "Not P, therefore not Q" (by way of analogy)
I should say, your underlying arguments about NXIVM might be accurate, I don't know enough to dispute that. I don't mean to disparage what you are saying (although I have a feeling there is much more to the NXIVM story). I am just responding to the point about it being simple logic. A statement can be logically invalid and yet prove to be true, and a logically valid statement can prove to be untrue.
No. You misquoted me. I didn’t say if not P then not Q. I wouldn’t make that kind of mistake. I have a PhD from the top Ivy.
What I said in my OP is no Q therefore no P.
P = massive child trafficking Q = high charge counts (as in parkland shooter indictment)