You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
This is about the publications saying the athlete has an XY chromosome. And the quote from the article that specifies that.
We are down into the weeds of English and logic.
Is the original source incorrect? Maybe. I don’t know. I can only go by what is published. If it was incorrect, I would expect to see the Olympic athlete publish their own test results from a third party lab. The absence of that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but the probabilities are against it.
Yes. And from that sentence, that means person A has attribute D.
But if we disagree on that, we just disagree on English and logic, and I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.
I’ll stop responding to your posts, because we’re not making any progress. But I want to be clear, I respect your position, I just think we can’t get the building blocks together to have a discussion.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent
Clearly our interpretation of English is very different.
Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete.
This directly states that A has D.
You’re basically saying guilty until proven innocent here. They say she broke that rule therefore she must have. This isn’t a criminal case but having actual proof goes a long way.
There’s no innocent or guilt here.
This is about the publications saying the athlete has an XY chromosome. And the quote from the article that specifies that.
We are down into the weeds of English and logic.
Is the original source incorrect? Maybe. I don’t know. I can only go by what is published. If it was incorrect, I would expect to see the Olympic athlete publish their own test results from a third party lab. The absence of that, doesn’t mean it’s not true, but the probabilities are against it.
No direct source claims A has d. All direct sourced is Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete
Yes. And from that sentence, that means person A has attribute D.
But if we disagree on that, we just disagree on English and logic, and I don’t think we’re going to find common ground.
I’ll stop responding to your posts, because we’re not making any progress. But I want to be clear, I respect your position, I just think we can’t get the building blocks together to have a discussion.
One last attempt. Just cause Person A was disqualified from event B because of rule C saying people with D cannot compete. You are concluding person A has D. That event runner got in trouble for corruption. There could be other conclusions than making an assumption or jumping to conclusions. Way more variables and lots to question on the even runners and even the test.
At the end of the day we should have a more confirmed test but at the end of the day all the athletes were fine with all other participants until they werent
I’m no languageist but I’d call that indirectly.
Good point.
It is discreet logic, with a few steps. But none of those steps require assumptions.
I should correct the above statement by saying it is slightly indirect. But not ambiguous.