Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3047287" data-attributes="member: 18280">I am arguing that there is not sufficient reason the believe the encounter unfair.Specifically, while A + B + C offers sufficient reason to believe the encounter unfair, the components taken alone are not unfair, nor are two of the components taken together without the third.(Each of these components has been examined exhaustively in this thread, and when a claim that the encounter is unfair has been made on the basis of these components, it was always the synthesis of these components that the claimant relied upon.  No one, or even two, of these components is unfair in and of itself.)I would also agree that there could be many components D, E, F, etc., that could take the place of one or all of the components that I listed which could make an encounter unfiar, but that there is insufficient reason to believe that there is any such additional component in the scenario described in the OP.There are many, many ways to be unfair.  All of them leave, IMHO, sufficient information to come to the rational and demonstrable conclusion that something is unfair.  If something is unfair, that it is unfair can be demonstrated.  We can certainly say, for example, that X as presented is fair, but if we later discover that critical components were missing from the presentation, we must change our mind and determine that X is not fair.  Since the OP described a hypothetical situation, there are no critical components that we will later discover (though the conditions of the situation may be altered to create a new hypothetical situation).RC</blockquote>

Verification