Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25
My original argument was whether the film EXPLICTLY showed any reason for Bane attacking Gotham/Bruce in particular without Talia being a part of it. I think we can safely conclude that no, no other reason is explicitly shown and any further interpretation is on the part of the viewer. Now Domino, a poster who I consider one of the best on the forum though we agree on nothing, states that though Talia is the only motivation shown, this doesn't preclude anything else from being a motive. This is a point I never argued, reading over my previous posts will show that all I argued was whether there were any other motives SHOWN. So yes, he is using an "absence of evidence/evidence of absence" argument which most would agree is often a last resort.
No other reason is explicitly shown, nor is the reason that you
provided explicitly shown. I think you misread "Domino" (sic) here. He is simply pointing out the lack of evidence for your assertion. That's not a fallacy, its a challenge. It isn't an argument from ignorance or negation, its an observation that the burden of proof rests with you to prove what you are asserting.