Throw a rock over a fence and the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.
“Throw a rock over a fence and the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.”
So if you accuse someone of something and they defend themselves, they are proved guilty because of the need to defend. If the accused don’t respond, the maxim of qui tacet consentire videtur can be used, and they are proved guilty by not responding.
Can someone name this logical fallacy in ten posts or less?