| ▲ | ablob 3 days ago | |||||||
Well first of all I never claimed that I was capable of thinking (smirk). We also haven't agreed on a definition of "thinking" yet, so as you can read in my previous comment, there is no meaningful conversation to be had. I also don't understand how your oddly aggresive phrasing adds to the conversation, but if it helps you: my rights and protections do not depend on whether I'm able to prove to you that I am thinking. (It also derails the conversation for what it's worth - it's a good strategy in the debating club, but these are about winning or loosing and not about fostering and obtaining knowledge) Whatever you meant to say with "Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed" eludes me as well. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
If I say I'm innocent, you don't say I have to prove it. Some facts are presumed to be true without burden of evidence because otherwise it could cause great harm. So we don't require, say, minorities or animals to prove they have souls, we just inherently assume they do and make laws around protecting them. | ||||||||
| ||||||||