[bagster]

When you are dealing with an unproven assertion, you should look at it critically, which first and foremost means fairly evaluating all the possible arguments and evidence that can disprove the assertion.

Well, I'm no genius and many many people are way smarter than me, but lemme take a crack at this one.

I agree that when presented with an assertion, one must"fairly balancing all the arguments and evidence that can disprove the assertion."

Of course that's true. One would have to be a fool not to. But what about that man who, like I asserted originally, doesn't consider the positive evidence that would prove the assertion. And the likelihood that it would be true. Remember, the assertion itself is a form of evidence. We would call that testimony in a courtroom.

Also, think about standards of proof and what standard SHOULD be used in this case.

Philosophy is fun.

In the meantime, it would be good of FReepers stopped C-blocking The Donald's Q program.

Think of it.

Bagster

[mac_truck]

The Donald's Q program.

Trump's involvement in this psyop is a figment of your imagination, as are many other elements of the hoax.

Keep digging that rabbit hole .