3 ms·
But you are also making your own claim, by asserting with absolute confidence that caste-based discrimination doesn't exist. If you were just questioning the re
by jcparkyn 3y ago
But you are also making your own claim, by asserting with absolute confidence that caste-based discrimination doesn't exist. If you were just questioning the reasoning of the author, then sure, the burden of proof would be with them.
Also, this is not a courtroom.
- moralestapia 3y ago>(emphasis) while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct Posting this sentence for the third time. I am on the "presumably correct" side. >Also, this is not a courtroom. Why is that important?
- jcparkyn 3y agoYou completely missed my point. You aren't "the other party" once you start making claims of your own. "I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election..." If your argument was just "there's not enough evidence to conclude that..." then I would agree with you. > Why is that important? Because you're trying to apply a convention from the context of legal disputes to something that isn't a legal dispute. Do you also ask HN commenters to go through a discovery process?
- moralestapia 3y agoThere's a lot to say but it can be summarized as: you cannot appeal to, and simultaneously ignore, the burden of proof. Following your really weird strawman, if we are not in a courtroom, why is it important? X2 Make up your mind, man.