|
|
 Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"
All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did
If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.
We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".
So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".
Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.
So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.
Is that the same as finding ice?
You don't need complicated analogies unless you're trying to obfuscate things.
It's really really really simple.
Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.
Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.
End of story.
The question was not: 'what do you do if you see mist?'.
The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?
I'll give you a hint: the correct response is 'no'.
The follow-up question was: if you insist on answering 'yes' to the above, are you an idiot?
(the answer is 'yes, you are')
We'll make it even more interesting and fun for kids now. If you insist on refusing to answer 'no' to the above, what does that make you?
|
Reply With Quote