Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
Ah, I see you misunderstand the fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy, holds that it is fallacious to say "most people think x, so x is certainly true true" (deductive reasoning), but not that it is fallacious to say "most people think x, so x is probably true" (inductive reasoning). In fact, the "most people" approach is generally quite accurate - see for example the success of the "ask the audience" lifeline in Who Wants to be a Millionaire - estimates at 95% success rate
http://millionaire.wikia.com/wiki/Ask_the_Audience

This case involves the interpretation of what someone (lux) was saying, so obviously it would not be possible to reach a certain conclusion, and I did not suggest that the preponderance of opinion suggested a certain conclusion. However, if near everyone understood a set of questions and comments to mean a certain thing, then it is perfectly valid to say that is probably what was meant.
Throwing in the word "probably" makes it 0% less fallacious reasoning.

Again, "more people in this thread agree with me, so I'm probably right" is still bad reasoning. Someone could easily use the same argument on, say, a flatearthers discussion forum. And most people there would agree the earth was flat. That makes it 0% more correct. (Hyperbolic example to prove the general point)

Thanks for playing, though.

You are wrong, it is admissible as evidence..... There is some chance we are coming from different jurisdictions here, but I would need an explicit reference to believe that an accused's answer to a policeman's question is inadmissable. Can you please provide a link to the law or case you are referencing.
I'm not digging up a law book to explain why "X person who died was an A-hole" is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as such when, well, read it.

Admissible or not as general evidence, it remains a non-confession and inadmissible as that. (My apologies if I was unclear on my point, there.)

So would the person NOT saying "I'm innocent" and enacting their right to remain silent not admissible as a confession. (Which is more in line with your original terrible reasoning than this red herring point.)