Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous.
That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.
I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.
Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.
You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.