freediver wrote on Nov 24
th, 2020 at 7:23pm:
One is you making up a statistic. The other is you misrepresenting a statement about a single person as a statistic.
Assuming innocence in committing an actual crime is not a statistic. This is the crux of your 31 pages of fail.
And I already clarified that it can be extended from a single person to include however many forums there are out there that provide a platform for islamophobic trolling. Until I see any evidence suggesting otherwise, I am quite happy to assert that not one of them is illegally sending a single cent to terrorists. Or in other words "Islam-critical online forums anywhere in the world illegally send zero of their advertising revenues to terrorists - in the absense of any evidence suggeseting otherwise" - is exactly equivalent to "halal certifiers send zero of their halal fees to terrorists - in the absense of any evidence suggeseting otherwise". Explain, if you can, why they are not equivalent.
And neither, by the way, are a statistic.
freediver wrote on Nov 24
th, 2020 at 7:23pm:
You misrepresent the legal concept of guilty until proven innocent [sic] when you pass off your position as being the same.. You keep flipping back and forth on this Gandalf. You can't have it both ways.
I've been explaining to you since near the beginning of this thread - ad-infinitum - how it is exactly the same as the legal concept of innocence until proven guilty. You have never once refuted me. Not once. Suggest you try that first before going back to the same tired and debunked claim over and over.
For one thing - sending money to terrorists is classified as a criminal activity under our legal system. So yes, we literally are discussing whether they are innocent or guilty of an actual crime. Thus the legal concept of the presumption of innocence could not be more central to this question. I say they are innocent (aka send zero amount of money to this illegal activity) when there is no shred of evidence presented to suggest otherwise. You, apparently, think that its far more reasonable to assume guilt until proven innocent.
freediver wrote on Nov 24
th, 2020 at 7:23pm:
I did not ask what you assumed. I asked if you had any evidence to back up your claim.
This merely demonstrates you either don't understand or willfully misrepresent what my claim is.
My claim is exactly an assumption - my assumption that they send zero amount of money to terrorists when there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. And since engaging in such activity would amount to an actual crime under our laws, this is exactly equivalent to saying I assume they are innocent (of this particular crime) until proven guilty.
freediver wrote on Nov 24
th, 2020 at 7:23pm:
But the other examples you made up in a failed attempt to demonstrate that you are not being a hypocrite on this, you happily admit lack any evidence.
What "other examples"?
The only other examples I used were your ozpolitic revenues and spear fishing club fees. And in those I took the exact same position - that they all send zero amount of money to illegal activities when there is zero evidence suggesting otherwise.