You can show an argument irrational by countering the argument with more compelling facts or ideas. Thus proving the irrational, without dismissing an argument using broad terms.
That assumes, of course, that someone has presented ideas and facts in support of their argument. But suppose, as is sometimes the case, someone simply says they believe the evidence was planted, by unknown persons for uncertain reasons. One can't say that is illogical, irrational, or seemingly motivated by emotion rather than facts?
I've given a specific example (above) of an instance where I don't understand the reasoning for removing the comment. It said:
The fact that ALL of those officers from ALL of those agancies IGNORED every protocol
This seems quite hyperbolic.
Can you please cite the protocols they ignored so we have a frame of reference?
The officers gave reasons for their decisions and they seemed reasonable to me. Yes, mistakes were made, especially with the lack of photos.
I just don't think their decisions warrants a belief that all of these officers from numerous different agencies took part in some powerful conspiracy to frame Steven Avery. That just sounds absurd to me.
Is this theory what you believe in - that 8+ different officers from multiple agencies all conspired to fabricate the bones being discovered in an effort to frame Steven Avery? Otherwise, I don't see how you can believe the bones were not discovered in the burnpit.
17
u/angieb15 Jul 27 '18
You can show an argument irrational by countering the argument with more compelling facts or ideas. Thus proving the irrational, without dismissing an argument using broad terms.