>>1297562>Being right is actually the least important part of this process.And here is where your argument goes to utter trash. My *sole* concern is with what is right.
You are supporting my point that CIA is involved because you agree anon might have had a good intuition about it.
But now, despite how good the intuition might be, you discard his opinion because he didn't follow your little, puny, empirical, nomothetic "due process". But you agree with me he got it almost right.
>ur... But that's not the pointYes. The point is anon got it right even without a political science degree.
>>1297562>That's illogical. The burden of proof, without exception, always lies on the person making the claimI see you are brainwashed by American court movies. This is not a court case. The burden of proof lies with the one who is making the most unlikely claim given the current framework of reference.
If I say that throwing a ball from a skyscraper will have the likely effect of the ball falling to the ground, I do not need burden of proof because I am making a claim that is backed up by a historical record of experiences.
If CIA had a clean slate, then I would concede the ones accusing CIA need to prove their statements. However, as I said, given the historical record of CIA meddling everywhere, the burden of proof is theirs. I mean, CIA has already killed a Congo President. Aren't you aware of that?
To let you understand, imagine a man being a well known wife beater. One day, his wife is found dead in the apartment. Of course there will be people like you, anon, who rush into saying that it is up to the prosecutor to show the wife-beater is the culprit. That is, because we have moral duties toward a hypothetically innocent man. But truth is it will be up to him to do the job of proving himself innocent, *given his past record*.
