Me reminding you that a hypothesis needs to be disprovable through observation in order to be valid and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not the one trying to disprove it, is the exact opposite of arguing in bad faith.
No one needs to prove that NATO is a defence pact they need to prove that it isn’t.
If you’re accused of committing a crime it’s not your responsibility to demonstrate to the court that you didn’t commit the crime, it’s a police’s job to actually find some evidence. They can’t go into court and go “well I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t commit the crime”. That makes no sense.
Are you seriously comparing court rules of individuals with statements about treaty organisations? Thoes two things are completely different entities and not comparable at all.
Indeed, it’s not something that can be disproven, as in it’s nonsense that shouldn’t be entertained in rational discourse.
Arguing in bad faith for the good guys is still arguing in bad faith.
Me reminding you that a hypothesis needs to be disprovable through observation in order to be valid and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not the one trying to disprove it, is the exact opposite of arguing in bad faith.
But the claim was that NATO is a defensive pact. They said it’s an un-disprovable claim.
No one needs to prove that NATO is a defence pact they need to prove that it isn’t.
If you’re accused of committing a crime it’s not your responsibility to demonstrate to the court that you didn’t commit the crime, it’s a police’s job to actually find some evidence. They can’t go into court and go “well I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t commit the crime”. That makes no sense.
Are you seriously comparing court rules of individuals with statements about treaty organisations? Thoes two things are completely different entities and not comparable at all.