Since I'm very much a logical person, I have found that the few times an emotional reaction seems to precede my logical analysis, there is always a logical reason for me to feel the way I do.
In this case, I have already read the accounts of other con men whose behaviors were nearly identical to Rossi's. So, I think the "feeling" is based on an assessment that since Rossi has demonstrated a behavior pattern, he will continue to act in a manner consistent with that pattern.
Let me guess--you would accept no evidence of Rossi's con man personality short of a psychiatric examination which, even if done, we would not see because of privacy laws.
You’re way off, and you’re headed down a track that is obviously blazed by your emotions. You won’t even look at the scientific evidence because you’re all wrapped up in the appearance of a con artist. You simply cannot see past it. And that is not due to your logical reasoning, it is due to your emotions.
Here’s a classic example of how you’re leading with your emotions:
Let me guess—you would accept no evidence of Rossi’s con man personality short of a psychiatric examination which, even if done, we would not see because of privacy laws.
***This is a total distortion of how I view the situation, and you argue against that distortion. Such an approach is a classic fallacy — it’s called straw argumentation. Why would someone who’s “very much a logical person” demonstrate a logical fallacy in the very next paragraph? Because you ain’t nearly as logical as you perceive yourself.