Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven't read it).

[–] m532@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Just read the evidence, it won't bite

[–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

I did, and they had to call an ambulance. I don't think I will be able to walk again. /s

I won't read the whole thing, I don't have that time. I read the ingress and (a summary to get a basic understand of the message meant to be convyed).

Now what? I never disputed nor did I affirm anything.

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The burden of proof is on you since you claim: "There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang". I can't prove a negative. The proof your type (western propagandized libs) usually provides are western sources, which have been debunked by providing context (in the link I provided)

[–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not Tabooki2, I'm only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with "the burden of proof is on you".

When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).

So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about "the treatment of wighurs". I appologise for the confusion on my part.