I don't have a strong opinion either way, I just think your original argument is fallacious. You cannot demand proof from the skeptics, and then claim lack of "concrete proof" against the unproven claim makes the claim correct. It's totally backwards. The onus is not on the skeptics to prove shit.
I don't have a strong opinion either way, I just think your original argument is fallacious. You cannot demand proof from the skeptics, and then claim lack of "concrete proof" against the unproven claim makes the claim correct. It's totally backwards. The onus is not on the skeptics to prove shit.
Why not? It’s the same tactic they would use. If they’re arguing in bad faith, why not highlight it for them? Besides, my argument goes beyond demanding proof.
Why not? It’s the same tactic they would use. If they’re arguing in bad faith, why not highlight it for them? Besides, my argument goes beyond demanding proof.
(post is archived)