To maintain my position of having no bias, I must mention that both Cybotron & I, at his insistence, agreed to leave the '80s series out of the discussion. I believe his reason was his not having seen it.
I will leave it to Fafnen to resume his own argument using only the '60s & '03 series. I will, however, maintain that Cybotron has not shown anything more than sheer speculation as
evidence, although he refers to it as
proof.
I will not attempt a discussion of the differences between
proof &
evidence:
First,
deductive reasoning &
inductive reasoning.
deductive reasoning:
2+2=4.
There is 100% certainty that 4 is the conclusion of "2+2".
Inductive reasoning: This is properly constructed formulae for anything other than 100% certainty. That is, given the truth of the hypothesis, the conclusion is possible, perhaps even probable, but
not certain. The very nature of Cybotron's evidence and conclusions is that of merely possible, perhasps probable, but certainly not
certainty. Consider:
Courts of law & juries weigh the evidence including testimony both for and against the proposition that defendant x is guilty of crime y. Among the evidence supporting that proposition there may be fingerprints & DNA on murder weapons, There may be motive for the accused to have done the deed, there may have been opportunity for him to have done it. However, none of these facts by itself constitutes
proof that he did it. Taken together, in the absence of evidence against the proposition, this
body or collection of evidence may be sufficient to persuade a jury. However, there could be evidence for the defense. How can the accused
prove that he did not do the deed. To do so, he must prove a
negative proposition. However, this is extremely difficult (nevermind why). In light of this difficulty, the US Constitution stipulates that the accused shall enjoy the presumption of innocence. It therefore, is the burden of the prosecution to prove his guilt. In the absence of overwhelming evidence, ie, the reasonable doubt is present, the jury is required to find him
not guilty.But how does the defendant demonstrate that he did not do the deed? Via an alibi. He asserts that hedid not do the deed, because at the time it was done, he was in a different place, and certain people testify of that fact. Thus, to prove a negative, he must prove a positive. However, here I use the term
prove in the sense of the sum of the evidence, rather than any one item thereof.
In law, the accusation is a positive assertion: "x did y." Just as in law, the
burden of prooof is upon the accuser, so too, in logic. Cybotron has asserted that Atom is an "agent of the State." By his own words, he takes this to mean:
- 1. Atom is a part of the government law-enforcement mechanism, as implied by his helping the poilce.
- a. As such, he is subject to the authority of the State.
- 2. O'shay is likewise, amember of the state law-enforcement mechanism.
- a. As such, he has authority over others, and is under someone else's authority.
- b. He is superior to Tawashi, as indicated by Tawashi removing his hat, & asking for Atom's assistence.
Cybotron has cited several other items as
proof of his assertions. However, both Fafner & I believe he has a very weak case.
Evidence against: None required, because the
burden of proof lies upon the one who makes a positive statement. Nevertheless, both I & Fafner have cited numerous items that suggest that Cybotron's conclusions are not logically necessary. I have shown that Cybotron, although he uses terms such as "logical deduction" in support of his assertions, he does not even understand the concept of "logical deduction". He may even have reached his conclusion before examining the evidence. This is suggested by the fact that he backed away froim his initial use of 'agent', and argued from a broader definiotion of that word. Anyone who aids x is an agent of x.
I ought to have found some better way to use my time, seeing that there is no convincing a believer that his belief is wrong. B)
He has the ability to know what people think, no through some telepathic device, but thanks to the same process humans do: by guessing. And of course he perfectly knows than Dr.Elefun would disaprove being injured or killed 
Maybe you are not as conceit as Jeffbert previously said 
So my goal became to prove you it was wrong by invalidating your arguments. It was a real pain as everytime you managed to find a point of view that invalidated my invalidation 
