Joe wrote:Rover the Top wrote:
Two women he admits sleeping with either have to have been planted to set him up or subsequently persuaded to make very serious but false claims against him.
The Swedish justice system has to have been corrupted to issue the arrest warrant to get him to Sweden so that they can pass him on to the USA.
The British justice system has to have been corrupted to reject his appeals against extradition if there's a genuine chance it is all a smoke screen.
I interpreted that you were arguing in favour of those points in bold, despite disagreeing (it seemed you were in the context of your post) with then. You had to argue in favour of them to go onto your next point, ie
Now, maybe people do think all that is possible. But then consider .......
Well, no. That just doesn't follow at all. Saying some people might believe something isn't an argument in favour of that something. For example, I could say some people believe in god, it doesn't mean I believe in god, or that I'm making an argument for there being a god. If anything, it would suggest my own personal doubt...
But I've no idea how to resolve this: I'm not going to defend a point I didn't make, even though you're carrying on as though I did. I don't know if you actually agree or disagree with the point I did make, so I can't continue the discussion. And I don't know how to get you to see your mistake when I can't see how you've made it in the first place. Based on the above, I wonder if you'll understand this...
