Embed Notice

@UlrikeHahn @vbuendiar @ide You insist on misunderstanding my argument.

Primarily, I'm saying that in the ABSENCE of evidence that supports a constraint on someone's freedom of action, that constraint is not justified.

The burden of proof lies on who wants to impose control.

This argument is mainly moral: power needs to be justified.

Additionally, the proposition that quotes cause harm needs evidence because it's fundamentally an empirical claim. No one explains *why* that should be true, they only claim that it is so. The absence of evidence for an empirical claim means it's not a valid claim. The burden lies on providing evidence for it, not against it. No one has to prove that unicorns don't exist.