This Is for the "Why lie?" people and globe earthers
I'm Just gonna give a simple analogy to explain why it's a waste of time to focus on the "Why would they live?" part of the arguement... before actually figuring out of the surface Is actually curving and assume It Is while diverting every conversation to irrelevant topics!
"There's been a murder in an apartment, which has been also robbed.
We get to the scene and i Say:
< This Person Is dead >
Your response then Is:
< Why were they robbed? >
And then procede to investigate the robbery, forgetting that it's a murder case.
So we waste time for hours only to come to the conclusion that the robbery was a ploy by the culprit to have us go in circles. Because you believed It was a big group while focusing on the robbery, when it's actually just 1 Person that took a Blade and stabbed the guy in the back"
Motive Is independent of action!
I don't have to know why someone Is dead to establish how. And i don't have to know who did It in order to know that there's been a murder!
We are both still on the case regarding the details! The motive and the method used to deceive are being observed and analized, but we know that it's a murder case.
You guy's are still focusing on the robbery!
2 Replies
I like the two murders analogy personally.
One murder, there is solid evidence like DNA, fingerprints, murder weapon, security footage, eyewitness accounts, etc.
But there is no connection between the murderer and victim, motive remains unknown.
The second murder, there is a personal grievance between the murderer and victim, like an affair,
not being the father of a child, as well as being fucked over in a business deal losing millions.
But there is no evidence, no body, no DNA, fingerprints, footage, eyewitnesses, zip nada.
Which murderer is going to prison?
:shrug2:
"If the person is dead, why would they have robbed him?" :derp:
:helpmeplz: