 Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Oh, excuse my use of the word "proof" instead of "evidence". I cannot provide evidence that terrorists are not being sent to covert interrogation locations to be tortured. But that is very trivial in light of the fact that the burden of evidence is on you. So I will ask you again. What else do you have? All I have seen is some biased journalism that claims that some European media outlets made claims and that there is an investigation. What else do you have? The "evidence" you have so far also applies to the existence of Bigfoot. Do you have even more evidence that Bigfoot does not exist? You are talking about an irrelevant level of "evidence".
Lol. I love it. The same argument over and over.
And I ask, again: Why is the "burden," objectively, on me? I forget. 
My position is that there is evidence that the U.S. supports torture, and it seems that you are the only one holding fast to the idea that there isn't. Your argument basically boils down to "convince me," which is impossible to do when someone refuses to be convinced. I could be making the stance that the moon has a gravitational pull and, to someone that refuses to consider it, no matter what argument is presented, it is impossible to "convince" them that there is evidence. You've been fighting in religion/spirituality too long. The position that the U.S. does not support torture is much harder to defend, logically, than the position that "God" (Bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) does not exist.
In the case of Bigfoot (forgive me while I roll my eyes), I have (and have presented) much more evidence toward the theory that the U.S. supports the torture of suspected terrorists than there is evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. I don't see how you can, respectfully, insult my intelligence by even implying otherwise.
Reuters (the source from where the U.S. defense of rendition, in my posts, comes from) is a credited source that is used for many stories by everyone from CNN, to MSNBC, to FOXNews. But if you choose to discredit them because of their input on this subject, alone, that is your prerogative.
So, again..why is the "burden" on me? Because you disagree? Because the Administration has said something that you agree with, and so the "burden" is on me, to convince you of otherwise, and not on the both of us to provide evidence for our claims? I find that kind of ridiculous.
|
|
Bookmarks