This is, and I don't know the kind of logic fallacy this is technically named, but here is the jist of it: You make a statement that you don't prove in any way. It may or may not be logical, or you may or may not think that it sounds like it could be true. But it is generally a charged issue.
For instance, that Hillary would start a smear campaign against her rival.
Then you state "PROVE that she didn't". It would be impossible. The burden of proof, I believe, properly rests on the person making the claim in the first place.
I also read this in regard to Barrack Obama. At age six he was sent to a Muslim school. So the argument goes like this: He went to a maddrassa (actually a this means school in Arabic). The argument goes that it is highly suspious that he never tells us he went to a madrassa. He is obviously hiding the fact that he is really a extremist Muslim. It is therefore his responsibility to the American people to prove that he is not. And of course, Hillary is clearly responsible for this leak of info. It is clear only that nobody can really prove they aren't/or didn't.
Obama went to a madrassa at age 6-8, this means he went to school.
He doesn't mention it because who thinks of mentioning it because who mentions their elementary education. It is by all accounts a typical school.
He was not brought up as Muslim. But he can in no way prove he is not a radical Muslim. Nor can Hillary really prove that she created this supposed "leak". The whole story is bogus, but you can't disprove the final suppositions. Obama attends the UCC church but he couldn't absolutely prove that he is not deep down inside a radical Muslim, anymore than you can prove to me that you aren't. Hillary could not prove that she didn't generate the story.
IF you make the initial assertion then you would have to be the one to show in some detail why you came to this, esp. since this was supposedly journalism. Therefore, Fox news would need to show us why Obama was a radical Moslem. And give the sources of this supposed info by the Hillary camp so that this claim could be discussed further. Perhaps other people would then interview these sources.
A kind of a sad outcome of all this is that the message is translated that Moslem is a bad and evil thing somehow. Another result could be further cynicism in an already cynical public, re: public service.
Nobody can indo this damage either.
--des
nutshell said:
Typical request for evidence when you have offered none.
