And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn’t check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn’t about legal content. That already wasn’t allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I’m only proving that it isn’t what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.
The point is “I haven’t heard them say this” is not a legitimate argument, because you haven’t heard them say anything about anything, because they haven’t said anything, and speculation is all we have.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn’t check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn’t about legal content. That already wasn’t allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I’m only proving that it isn’t what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
The point is “I haven’t heard them say this” is not a legitimate argument, because you haven’t heard them say anything about anything, because they haven’t said anything, and speculation is all we have.