Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf
Perhaps it's a problem of language? There's nothing wrong with making deductions, but the way you phrase them makes it seem as though you are passing assertions for fact, and that's a poor way to approach any argument.
For example:
Non sequitur. You make a number of assertions, but none of them are definitively linked, nor has the show conclusively established the cause and effect. How does the doctor's status as a "latent criminal" prove that if one's crime coefficient becomes too blurry you get shafted into working for the state?
|
Why do we need the doctor to prove that? There was a guy who was condemened when he was 5 years old.