Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Your "logic" is completely circular. He's probably guilty because he's a cyclist and cyclists are probably guilty because cyclists are probably guilty.
My logic was not circular. The circular logic is shown in bold in your statement above. However, those words are yours and not mine. They are your incorrect recap of my argument.
My logic was linear and was this: [MOST CYCLISTS WERE DOPING AND LYING BOUT IT] --> [PROBABILITY (GREG DOPING & LYING) >> 0]
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Frankly, I am being insulting because I think what you are doing here is really scummy.
So you're being
deliberately insulting? That again, is Lance-esque bullying and no way to prosecute a rational debate.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
The argument that we should presume all cyclists prior to LA's bust were guilty because presuming otherwise is what allowed LA to get away with it is ridiculous.
Okay, what is ridiculous about that argument? Add some logical meat to the insult, please.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
I suspect your real motivation is to preserve your ability to see LA as "some sort of role model", so you need to burden shift to make Lemond prove a negative because actual proof (not empty rhetoric about probability) is completely lacking.
I have no mysterious psychological need for Lemond to be guilty. I consider Lemond and Armstrong to
both be role models of sorts even if both are manipulative, lying, dopers. I simply feel that Lance's perception of LeMond's potential doping forms part of the context in which Lance made his behavioral choices. In this sense, it barely matters whether or not LeMond was guilty. What matters is whether or not Lance would have
perceived him to be guilty and, therefore, a hypocrite. Like me, I suspect that Lance did suspect LeMond's guilt.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Lemond is so dissonant with your cognitives that you have to character assassinate him with bs about "probabilities."
Seriously? Your resting your defense of LeMond on the Freudian psychoanalysis of a stranger over the internet now? And somehow that's more acceptable as a form of argument than a rational discussion of logical probabilities?