>>11378986Get fucked, nerd.
>>11379008> My evidence is the likelihood that any culprit who steals a bike is black.Firstly, this is in fact evidence. Secondly, there are many black people besides Tyrone.
> This likelihood is high and so I would even bet money on it knowing I would win lots.You would win very little betting on random black people being responsbile for a certain crime.
> Predictably you liberal morons say one thing but you would never put your money where your words lie because we all know youre just bullshitting either as a cope or for more voters./pol/yp as fuck.
> You are the one arguing that since all evidence you have is insufficient to point to the conclusion that there is a bridge, there does not exist a bridge. If you have been told there is a bridge, then that is evidence (Though not conclusive or certain) that there is a bridge. If you have been blindfolded and need to guess the location of this bridge, you will have a very low chance of doing so.
> But you dont know that because you are blindfolded, there certainly can be one and many have been built in the past so there is no reason there wont be one. It is simply that you are letting emotions cloud your judgement and you assume that an example is a proof of your theory.Are you honest to god telling me that you would bet your life on there being a bridge across a chasm at that particular spot when you have been blindfolded?
Let me put it another way: Suppose you're a soldier and you need to shoot a dude; you could try continually firing in random directions because "I can't prove I won't hit him", but you'll have a much better chance if you actually gather evidence (i.e. search for the target) and act on that instead. I'm not sure why this is such a complicated subject for you to grasp or why you think politics much less libtards have anything to do with it whatsoever.
