• Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      72·
      1 year ago

      Why should I? You guys, and you the first, defend keeping exploding-heads federated. It’s enough from an outsider’s point of view.

      Because, and I’m making a large assumption here, you’re attempting to respectfully have a good faith conversation about a topic.

      In this conversation you made an assertion, to wit:

      You’re accepting the nazis at your bar.

      and I requested that you provide proof of your claim. This seems like a reasonable request and philosophy actually has something to say about the matter:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

      When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

      So, show the proof that backs up your statement. If there are ‘Nazis at [our] bar’ then where are they?

      I mean, if there isn’t any proof of what you’re saying then and you’re just engaging in name calling and bad faith discussion then that would seem to violate the ‘Be Respectful’ rule of the instance.

        • Difficult_Bit_1339@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          72·
          1 year ago

          Does it have to come exclusively from here?

          Yes, if you’re discussing ‘Nazis at your bar’ then you should point to the Nazis at this bar. Not at any Nazis at any bar on the planet.

          I don’t care about convincing you, and I’ll tell you bluntly that your large assumption is wrong.

          So you’re not here attempting to respectfully have a good faith conversation? That certainly saves me a lot of time in responding to you.

          I would advice against the continuing disrespectful comments. Especially from someone who is so keen on seeing the rules enforced.