Yes. I read the post.
He brought it up in the context of complaining about the #metoo movement, so unless he is given to interjecting completely unrelated topics mid-conversation, he must think there is some kind of connection between the Ouija board thing and other accusations.
If you think he is making a different connection than the one I identified, then say what you think that is.
I'd say that SOME connection, inside his head (because that's ALL he talked about), is not the same as making the sweeping statement for all accusations that you read from his post. That's entirely in your head.
Then fine. Change the conclusion to something you find more reasonable, then show the valid logic connecting the premise and the conclusion.
Since there are rightists in this conversation, invariably, someone's going to try and change the premise and conclusion to
Premise: I was falsely accused of X
(Logic goes here)
Conclusion: therefore some accusations of X are false
The problem with this is that it is so vague that it does not explain why he felt the need to interject
that observation into
this conversation. If anyone wants to go that route, you are going to have to add something to the conversation to explain why he felt the need to interject that comment into this conversation. The above is too vague to be meaningful.
Everyone already knows that for every crime, there are false accusations. There would have been no reason to reveal a bitter, personal experience like that if all he wanted to do was to say that some accusations of X are false accusations. He felt some valid reason for interjecting that into this conversation, and clearly some of you find that interjection reasonable.
So help me out. Show me how it is relevant to a conversation about #METOO. Correct the conclusion and/or premise, then show the logic connecting the two.
Am I really asking for too much here?
