I already have proven it, Walt. If you dispute this, please rebut my argument.
It's an assumption on your part.
No Walt. It's a logically deduced necessity of causation. If Y is contingent upon X, for Y to occur, X must be present. Therefore, Y's occurence proves the presence of X.
In this specific case, for Lincoln to convince Corwin to substitute the language (Y), Lincoln's knowledge of the substitute language (X) must be present. Y definately did occur, therefore X must have been present for it is an inescapably necessity of Y's occurence. I have repeatedly invited you to question this logical fact and show otherwise. That is the only way you can get around my argument, Walt. And despite having ample opportunity to do so, you have avoided doing so. You avoid it because you know that you cannot rebut it.
Had you said, "Lincoln was probably lying" you'd be in the clear.
Why should I retreat to the vagueness of probability when I can logically assert Lincoln's lie to have occurred with certitude? If you doubt my ability to do so, please rebut my logical conclusion. Otherwise, live with the fact that Lincoln lied.
Now all you've done is show that running down the greatest American and thereby the whole country
Sorry Walt, but the country is far greater than any one citizen or president. Individual persons are flawed inherently. That much is indisputable. Therefore, when one asserts the greater goodness of the country itself, they assert an institution that transcends the flaws of any one individual. As for your characterization of Lincoln as the greatest American, that is only a matter of opinion held by you and nothing more. It is inherently subjective in its nature and therefore cannot be asserted as anything beyond its own subjectivity.
is more important to you than telling the truth.
That would presume that (a) I am running down the greatest american and country and (b) not telling the truth. I also would venture to say that the first one is by its own nature unprovable for reasons asserted above. The second is provable, but you have not done so. You have established neither to be true nor have you even made an attempt to establish them beyond your own assertion. Therefore, I may reject them in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Why should I retreat to the vagueness of probability when I can logically assert Lincoln's lie to have occurred with certitude?
You can't prove it.
What can be logically deduced is that President Lincoln had no reason to lie, but you did.
Walt
I can't disprove something that didn't happen.
And you can't prove it happened. You deduced something and presented it as hard cold fact.
You could have said, "here is almost certainly what happened", but you didn't. You jumped in and took a plunge that you cannot now support.
Walt
Let's check the dictionary.
deduction; 1. the act of deducing. 2. logic Reasoning from stated premises to the formally valid conclusion; reasoning from the general to the specific. 3. an inference or conclusion.
Under synonyns for inference:
conclusion, consequence, deduction, demonstration, induction. A conclusion is the absolute and necessary result of the admision of certain premises; an inference is a probable conclusion, towards which known facts, statements, or admissions point, but which do not absolutely establish; sound premises together with their necessary conclusions constituture a demonstration."
You have stated something as fact which you cannot, using your own words, absolutely establish.
Walt