Another case of someone consciously attempting at distorting logic in a like manner as the one I highlighted yesterday.

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Logic is all about relating individual pieces of information in a consistent way. "Consistent" means non-contradictory. An apparent tendency of two pieces of information to appear inconsistent calls for express differentiating clarification, with the logically required depth of differentiating discussion depending on the extent to which both pieces of information appear similar.

We had expressed ourselves confident to be able to predict the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election with a high degree of confidence based on financial market behavior. What we figured out - with the highest degree of confidence - was that we were maximally uncertain about the outcome (keeping us in silent consternation). Which in hindsight would appear exactly as the correct assessment to have been made.

It is early days for wanting to predict the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election based on financial market behavior, yet, pulling together the clues that I have picked up so far, it simply "feels" like 2016 once again.

An Egyptian man takes a hostage at knifepoint in the Milan cathedral, threatening to slit his victim's throat. A once reputable Italian paper tells its readers that police "convinced him to lay down his weapon and release the hostage", when in fact, for everyone to see on video, police had to forcefully overwhelm him. The full and unredacted video, in turn, explodes on social media.