Sorry to disappoint you Lao Tou but in exchange for the return of my belongings and valuables and an assurance that they would respect my home and not approach me or contact me without my consent the police dropped all charges and considered the matter closed. If they hadn't consented to these conditions the police would have charged them on all counts.
The court matter concerned their Plan B which was to petition for a divorce based claims of excessive abuse, harrassment and cultural differences etc and a healthy financial settlement into the bargain. As I argued in court the claims had no basis in fact their arguments didn't hold any water and a cash settlement was out of the question. Cash in exchange for withdrawing their petition so I wanted to contest it in court . That would have delayed the proceedings by months and she was under pressure to settle the matter at once by her family.
In return for no financial settlement, no admission of wrongdoing I agreed to an immediate divorce as the court officials advised both parties.
I agree with outsider, talk about muddling the waters and mean don't mix the abstract with the real. With people we are talking about character, people of good character do good things and people of bad character do bad things how could you possibly tell what kind of person lives in a house from the type of Chinese characters he hangs of his front door.
Facts speak lounder than words judge a man from his achievements or deeds and intentions.
Lylian logic is purely inductive based on the laws of probability that says it if it is true for most of the people then it should be considered true for all of the people including those we don't actually know. It's a presumption eg all Chinese men between 20 and 25 have black hair, that's true for 99.99% of men that not for 100% of men. But it is interpreted as 100% of Chinese men have black hair that statement is simply not true.
Our logic is deductive based on known facts, from what we know to be true the following can be deduced as certain
Fact: stealing and fraud is against the law.
Fact: The police have arrested and the court has convicted person A of stealing, fraud and embezzlement.
Conclusion: Person A has a criminal record, a history of commiting illegal acts. Person A is a convicted criminal.
Inductive reasoning is not wrong or false reasoning but should only be applied in the absence of facts, experiences and stats deductive arguments in other words not as a replacement for them.
Inductive reasoning often descends into generalizations, sterotypes and false premises applying fixed rules or conventions instead of dealing with things case by case, looking for specifics .