'Conspiracy Author' David Icke Banned From EU, Labeled A "Terrorist"

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't have to make an analysis of what he (Icke) has said through his entire history as a speaker.

Starting from a neutral position allows people to gather information and analyse it without any bias, and, as a consequence, helps them avoid being, for example, fooled by false information.

By your quote, it is possible to assume that if the "Protocols" was a falsehood, as per wiki etc., then Icke was fooled by false information. It does not follow that he is anti semitic just for having used it in his works if he felt it was legit. Much of his writing is simply about the human race rising up against the forces that control us to our detriment.

I found this quote by Icke where he clarifies his position...

"My use of extracts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was too much for political purity to take. It didn't matter that I had emphasised, as I do in this book, that this is not a plot by Jewish people; it didn't matter that I renamed them the "Illuminati Protocols" for the specific reason of getting away from their association with Jewish people; it didn't matter that these Protocols, which came to light in the late-1800s, contain details of the very plan of manipulation which has provably unfolded through the twentieth century.

Icke

So, going back to your quote about starting from a neutral position...

We know there is, as he calls it, a "plan of manipulation".
We know there are groups with immense power behind them.
By coincidence, there are a disproportionately higher number of jewish people in positions of power and thus they get unfairly blamed for the manipulation.
Therefore, those manipulating are likely hiding behind the jewish culture and sheltering under the broad sweeping protections given by labelling anyone who makes such connections, such as Icke, as anti semitic.

I believe I'm staying neutral in stating this. I mean no one any harm but how is the world to find balance and end the domination of a particular group if the very act of discussing it is considered akin to anti semitic? Icke specifically says in the statement above that he doesn't mean jewish people, but he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt.

I experienced this myself during the covid debacle when I told my brother that what was being done to society mirrored the first steps the nazis took toward the jews... he told me to be careful as what I was saying was bordering on anti semitic! Obviously, it wasn't near as bad but propaganda and division works the same on any culture and it bothered me that I was not allowed to have this opinion which was a simple observation of process, hardly taking away from the plight of the jews under the nazis.

My interest in this subject lies in the fact that controlling language controls the mind of the masses. When certain words/thoughts/inferences are verboten then evil can hide behind it and remain active.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes the burden of proof are on those who accused Icke of being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier or whatever else has been claimed.

No, the burden of proof is on everyone that makes a statement, not just people on one side of the problem.

If someone says "Icke is anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier" then that person should present proof of both those sentences (it's possible to be one and not be the other).

If someone says "Icke is not anti-Semitic or a holocaust denier" then that person should present proof of that too.

If someone says "show me proof that Icke is an anti-Semitic or a holocaust denier" that person is asking for information and is not making a statement regarding one or the other side of the situation.

We need to call out on all those who make unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to censor and silence free speech.

We need to call out on all those who make unsubstantiated claims.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claims. We agree on this.

But what is a claim.

It has been claimed here that Icke is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier for which I have asked for evidence and proof.

My position has been clear from the beginning. There is no evidence that Icke is anti-semitic or a holocaust denier and there has never been any. If anyone has evidence and proof they can bring it forward.

As far as evidence is concerned there is no much on the claims made and hence the default position that Icke is not anti-semitic and not a holocaust denier is maintained. Likewise there is is no evidence that Pink Unicorns exist and hence the default position of the non existence of pink unicorns is maintained.

And yes I have called out on all those who have accused Icke in the absence of any evidence for the obvious purpose to censor him and silence him.

One last comment, I don't think I need to bring evidence or proof that Icke isn't a terrorist who hasn't committed any crimes against his fellow citizens. We assume innocence until the opposite is proven. Hence the default position is maintained. I think you have mixed up who need to have evidence and under what circumstances.

As far as I know Icke doesn't have a criminal record and has never been charged or convicted of any hate related crimes or any crimes in relation to denying the holocaust or for anti-semitism. Therefore anyone accusing him must bring proof otherwise these are just libelous and defamatory claims.

a reply to: ArMaP


On another note you have claimed that the only real censorship is the censorship online because if he was censored he wouldn't be able to give his speech online and he wouldn't be able to sell his books (most of these sells happen online). But this is false as censorship has existed long time before the internet was invented, and the internet is a very recent invention not even 30 years old but censorship has been with us for a very long period of time. As far as online censorship is concerned Icke has been deplatformed and many of his accounts have been blocked.

On page 17 you said this in one of your comments

If he was censored he wouldn't be allowed to made his speech online and his books would be banned from being on sale.
That's what real censorship is like, I lived under one during the first years of my life.

en.wikipedia.org...


Definition

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.

According to you there was no real censorship prior to the invention of the internet if the only real censorship is the one online.

If you look at the definition above or any definition then what you said isn't true. As the matter of fact all you need to consider is human history and how censorship is applied. Censorship can be conducted by Governments and by private institutions and corporations as correctly stated in the definition above.

Icke has been the victim of censorship by both the 'State' and by the 'Private Corporations'. The Dutch Government banned him and have censored his speech as he is unable to say what he wanted to say in person and several private companies have censored him by blocking his accounts online.

Its not good to be in a state of denial.

a reply to: ArMaP

One more thing that you have avoided to answer earlier as you said that nobody has made this claim.

Take a look at this

u.osu.edu...#:~:text=The%20belief%20that%20unicorns%20are,horn%20projecting%20from%20its%20forehead.

The belief that unicorns are real and still roam the earth today is something that many modern, civilized people believe in. The definition of a unicorn an animal that dates all the way back to the dinosaur era whom closely resembles a horse and has a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. There are many people that currently believe that unicorns do exist today or have existed in the past.

So there are people who believe in unicorns. Let's say also there are people who believe in the existence of pink unicorns to make it even more funny.

Do you think I need to provide evidence or proof that pink unicorns don't exist? It this the default position which is the acceptable one and given that there is not a single piece of evidence that pink unicorns exist or have ever existed.

I can't be 'neutral' as you have said earlier. My position is still the same i.e that pink unicorns don't exist given the absence of any evidence towards their existence.

The claim that there is no proof for the nonexistence of pink unicorns is a logical fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy in a few words.

a reply to: igloo

You make some good points in your comments and it's nice to see someone not screaming and ranting "refuted" or "word salad"...

I posted earlier why my dislike for Icke, so I won't go over that again.
But his use of the document "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it's creation and why it's continued to be used to this day can't be denied, and just changing it's name to something else doesn't really do anything, does it?. His idea of a "plan of manipulation" is still exactly what's described in the "Protocols".
I think a Shakespeare quote helps here "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Icke still believes the document is real and not a forgery, and still believes "Zion" and Zionist are trying to rule the world (with the help of aliens).

Zion - is a placename in the Hebrew Bible used as a synonym for Jerusalem, as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole.

Zionist - A Zionist is a follower of Zionism, a movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel. The term can be a neutral, positive, or offensive term for a Jewish Israeli nationalist.

These can be such loaded terms when used, Speech isn't always free, it does sometimes have consequences.
Here in Great Britian the term Zionist was used by Jeremy Corbin, which ended up causing his sacking.
The Independent - Jeremy Cornin Speech

Twitter. Jamie Susskind, August 23 2018
Just to be clear, in the Daily Mail clip Corbyn is not criticising Israel or supporting Palestinians. He is saying that Zionists (read Jews) who have lived in England their whole lives are somehow not fully English in their sensibilities.

Constantine Report

One of Icke's main sources is a notorious document called the `Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which he renames `the Illuminati Protocols'. It states that Jews are trying to take over the world, and was used by the Nazis to justify the genocide of 6 million people. The Waffen SS used to carry copies in their knapsacks.

By using this document Icke denies the word of those historians who have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that the Protocols are a forgery. He also gives credence to those groups who still use the Protocols to justify their anti-Semitism

Those that support Icke claim it's just guilt by association but anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are not guilt by association. Neither is publishing in Neo-Nazi publications like Spotlight and Exposure.
We know the horrors commited by Nazi Germany during World War 2 on Jewish people as well as other groups to be legitimate and undisputable, so if Icke's claims of just using the "protocols" to help prove his alien thesis, why in his books is he also denying the historical fakes of WW2? Why take a swing at the fim "Schindler's List"? Surely if you wanted to steer away from any aligations of antisemite would you do that?

I do agree that in todays world, if you criticize Isreal for any reason, it's very easy to be labeled an antisemite, and that's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the use of Nazi propaganda should also sound warning bells.

Thanks again for the intelligent and honest post, and it's a shame I can only give it a star in support of an honest discussion between people with differing opinions.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: igloo

You make some good points in your comments and it's nice to see someone not screaming and ranting "refuted" or "word salad"...

I posted earlier why my dislike for Icke, so I won't go over that again.
But his use of the document "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it's creation and why it's continued to be used to this day can't be denied, and just changing it's name to something else doesn't really do anything, does it?. His idea of a "plan of manipulation" is still exactly what's described in the "Protocols".
I think a Shakespeare quote helps here "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Icke still believes the document is real and not a forgery, and still believes "Zion" and Zionist are trying to rule the world (with the help of aliens).

Zion - is a placename in the Hebrew Bible used as a synonym for Jerusalem, as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole.

Zionist - A Zionist is a follower of Zionism, a movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel. The term can be a neutral, positive, or offensive term for a Jewish Israeli nationalist.

These can be such loaded terms when used, Speech isn't always free, it does sometimes have consequences.
Here in Great Britian the term Zionist was used by Jeremy Corbin, which ended up causing his sacking.
The Independent - Jeremy Cornin Speech

Twitter. Jamie Susskind, August 23 2018
Just to be clear, in the Daily Mail clip Corbyn is not criticising Israel or supporting Palestinians. He is saying that Zionists (read Jews) who have lived in England their whole lives are somehow not fully English in their sensibilities.

Constantine Report

One of Icke's main sources is a notorious document called the `Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which he renames `the Illuminati Protocols'. It states that Jews are trying to take over the world, and was used by the Nazis to justify the genocide of 6 million people. The Waffen SS used to carry copies in their knapsacks.

By using this document Icke denies the word of those historians who have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that the Protocols are a forgery. He also gives credence to those groups who still use the Protocols to justify their anti-Semitism

Those that support Icke claim it's just guilt by association but anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are not guilt by association. Neither is publishing in Neo-Nazi publications like Spotlight and Exposure.
We know the horrors commited by Nazi Germany during World War 2 on Jewish people as well as other groups to be legitimate and undisputable, so if Icke's claims of just using the "protocols" to help prove his alien thesis, why in his books is he also denying the historical fakes of WW2? Why take a swing at the fim "Schindler's List"? Surely if you wanted to steer away from any aligations of antisemite would you do that?

I do agree that in todays world, if you criticize Isreal for any reason, it's very easy to be labeled an antisemite, and that's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the use of Nazi propaganda should also sound warning bells.

Thanks again for the intelligent and honest post, and it's a shame I can only give it a star in support of an honest discussion between people who differing opinions

Well... since you made claims that David Icke is a holocaust denier and anti-semitic then you should provide the evidence and the proof. All you do is going around the subject and being unable to provide any proof of these claims.

Show me one of his interviews or talks and speeches or something that he has written where he clearly states that the holocaust never happened. Imagine you are in a court of law and you want to prove this.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: igloo

You make some good points in your comments and it's nice to see someone not screaming and ranting "refuted" or "word salad"...

I posted earlier why my dislike for Icke, so I won't go over that again.
But his use of the document "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it's creation and why it's continued to be used to this day can't be denied, and just changing it's name to something else doesn't really do anything, does it?. His idea of a "plan of manipulation" is still exactly what's described in the "Protocols".
I think a Shakespeare quote helps here "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Icke still believes the document is real and not a forgery, and still believes "Zion" and Zionist are trying to rule the world (with the help of aliens).

Zion - is a placename in the Hebrew Bible used as a synonym for Jerusalem, as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole.

Zionist - A Zionist is a follower of Zionism, a movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel. The term can be a neutral, positive, or offensive term for a Jewish Israeli nationalist.

These can be such loaded terms when used, Speech isn't always free, it does sometimes have consequences.
Here in Great Britian the term Zionist was used by Jeremy Corbin, which ended up causing his sacking.
The Independent - Jeremy Cornin Speech

Twitter. Jamie Susskind, August 23 2018
Just to be clear, in the Daily Mail clip Corbyn is not criticising Israel or supporting Palestinians. He is saying that Zionists (read Jews) who have lived in England their whole lives are somehow not fully English in their sensibilities.

Constantine Report

One of Icke's main sources is a notorious document called the `Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which he renames `the Illuminati Protocols'. It states that Jews are trying to take over the world, and was used by the Nazis to justify the genocide of 6 million people. The Waffen SS used to carry copies in their knapsacks.

By using this document Icke denies the word of those historians who have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that the Protocols are a forgery. He also gives credence to those groups who still use the Protocols to justify their anti-Semitism

Those that support Icke claim it's just guilt by association but anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are not guilt by association. Neither is publishing in Neo-Nazi publications like Spotlight and Exposure.
We know the horrors commited by Nazi Germany during World War 2 on Jewish people as well as other groups to be legitimate and undisputable, so if Icke's claims of just using the "protocols" to help prove his alien thesis, why in his books is he also denying the historical fakes of WW2? Why take a swing at the fim "Schindler's List"? Surely if you wanted to steer away from any aligations of antisemite would you do that?

I do agree that in todays world, if you criticize Isreal for any reason, it's very easy to be labeled an antisemite, and that's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the use of Nazi propaganda should also sound warning bells.

Thanks again for the intelligent and honest post, and it's a shame I can only give it a star in support of an honest discussion between people who differing opinions

The dislike you have for Icke isn't really relevant in these conversations but noted.

Good that you agree that criticising the State of Israel or maybe corporations that are owned by Jewish people you maybe labelled as an antisemite. And this is precisely part of this wonderful conversation.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I've shown the proof from Ickes own books, you just don't want to see it because you're blinkered. I've also shown that you don't understand the court of law and how it pertains to this but again you refuse to see it.
Why go to any effort to light the way when your blind.....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I've shown the proof from Ickes own books, you just don't want to see it because you're blinkered. I've also shown that you don't understand the court of law and how it pertains to this but again you refuse to see it.
Why go to any effort to light the way when your blind.....

So you are confident that if you take Icke to the court you can prove that he is a holocaust denier?
Where is this proof? Because in a court of law you need to have very strong evidence and show beyond any doubt that he is a holocaust denier.

Do you really think you have proof?! Because if you do then the meaning of proof changes dramatically.

I wonder what will happen in a libel and defamation case where the one accused is you and where the burden of proof is reversed for these cases.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your blinkered comments are worthless my friend and mean nothing.
You asked earlier for book and page numbers, which I posted some of and you ignored it, you havent even bothered to talk to me about his "banning". You just try to force your opinion onto others without a two way coversation and post silly childish statements like "just word salad" or "refuted" without any attempt to back up any of your claims.
Take Igloo's wel constructed post as an example in how to do it correctly and learn from it.

Also, the link you posted on English law was a rebuttal to defamation from a Liverpoool law firm and not about the actual law itself, but to humour you a little longer, here...

the statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest: that is, opinion which any person could honestly hold, based on facts known at the time;

Like I said earlier, Why go to any effort to light the way when your blind.....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your blinkered comments are worthless my friend and mean nothing.
You asked earlier for book and page numbers, which I posted some of and you ignored it, you havent even bothered to talk to me about his "banning". You just try to force your opinion onto others without a two way coversation and post silly childish statements like "just word salad" or "refuted" without any attempt to back up any of your claims.
Take Igloo's wll constructed post as an example in how to do it correctly.

Also, the link you posted on English law was a rebuttal to defamation from a Liverpoool law firm and not about the actual law itself, but to humour you a little longer, here...

the statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest: that is, opinion which any person could honestly hold, based on facts known at the time;

Like I said earlier, Why go to any effort to light the way when your blind.....

The link I have provided is perfectly valid and shows precisely where the burden of proof is when defamatory claims are made.

Do you seriously believe you have proof that David Icke is a holocaust denier?

As far as the evidence is concerned there is nothing much to it apart from accusations. As far as I know David Icke doesn't have a criminal record and hasn't been charged or convicted of anything, including hate speech, racism, or whatever other offences there might be out there.

Still looking for proof of this.
Where is it which shows clearly that Icke has denied the holocaust??

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The link you provided showed I was correct and not you!!!
This is what the law states.

the statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest: that is, opinion which any person could honestly hold, based on facts known at the time;

I've posted evidence which you've ignored Like I said earlier, So why go to any more effort to light the way, when your blind....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The link you provided showed I was correct and not you!!!
This is what the law states.

the statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest: that is, opinion which any person could honestly hold, based on facts known at the time;

I've posted evidence which you've ignored Like I said earlier, So why go to any more effort to light the way, when your blind....

Let's see this again and let's see where the burden of proof is (in England)


en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=English%20law%20allows%20actions%20for,profession%2C%20or%20damages%20their%20reputation.

English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world

originally posted by: igloo
By your quote, it is possible to assume that if the "Protocols" was a falsehood, as per wiki etc., then Icke was fooled by false information.

You're right, it's possible.

It does not follow that he is anti semitic just for having used it in his works if he felt it was legit. Much of his writing is simply about the human race rising up against the forces that control us to our detriment.

That happens a lot these days, with people that accept whatever they see on social media without any questions and spread disinformation without knowing.

"My use of extracts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was too much for political purity to take. It didn't matter that I had emphasised, as I do in this book, that this is not a plot by Jewish people; it didn't matter that I renamed them the "Illuminati Protocols" for the specific reason of getting away from their association with Jewish people; it didn't matter that these Protocols, which came to light in the late-1800s, contain details of the very plan of manipulation which has provably unfolded through the twentieth century.

Icke

Thanks, that's one of the things I mentioned, if he isn't anti-Semitic it should be relatively easy to find quotes from him about it.

By coincidence, there are a disproportionately higher number of jewish people in positions of power and thus they get unfairly blamed for the manipulation.

The proportion of Jewish people in positions of power changes a lot from country to country.

Therefore, those manipulating are likely hiding behind the jewish culture and sheltering under the broad sweeping protections given by labelling anyone who makes such connections, such as Icke, as anti semitic.

It's possible.

I believe I'm staying neutral in stating this. I mean no one any harm but how is the world to find balance and end the domination of a particular group if the very act of discussing it is considered akin to anti semitic?

In this specific case of Jewish people, by showing Jewish people they are being used as a kind of "shield" by people that are not Jewish.
I suppose.

I experienced this myself during the covid debacle when I told my brother that what was being done to society mirrored the first steps the nazis took toward the jews... he told me to be careful as what I was saying was bordering on anti semitic! Obviously, it wasn't near as bad but propaganda and division works the same on any culture and it bothered me that I was not allowed to have this opinion which was a simple observation of process, hardly taking away from the plight of the jews under the nazis.

Yes, anti-semitism is used too lightly by all sides, as is Nazism and other known "triggers".

My interest in this subject lies in the fact that controlling language controls the mind of the masses. When certain words/thoughts/inferences are verboten then evil can hide behind it and remain active.

True.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
One last comment, I don't think I need to bring evidence or proof that Icke isn't a terrorist who hasn't committed any crimes against his fellow citizens. We assume innocence until the opposite is proven. Hence the default position is maintained. I think you have mixed up who need to have evidence and under what circumstances.

My point of view is that things change when we say things like "Icke isn't anti-Semitic", as that's making a claim.
If we say "no clear proof that Icke is anti-Semitic has been presented" then we are stating an opinion about the quality of the proof that was presented or about the lack of proof presented and we still being neutral.

a reply to: ArMaP

There is no evidence that Icke is anti-semitic and/or a holocaust denier.

The main issue of this story is not what Icke is or is not but a group of deranged and derailed left wing activists who have managed through threats to censor Icke. And an incompetent Dutch Government that instead of arresting or threatening to arrest anyone who disturbs peace and creates public disorder decided instead to succumb to the pressures of the activists.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
On another note you have claimed that the only real censorship is the censorship online because if he was censored he wouldn't be able to give his speech online and he wouldn't be able to sell his books (most of these sells happen online).

I didn't claim that the only real censorship is the censorship online.
In fact, I said more than once that I lived through a fascist dictatorship that applied real censorship, against direct speech, books, plays, songs, everything. Having known all that, why would I said that the only real censorship is online?

But this is false as censorship has existed long time before the internet was invented, and the internet is a very recent invention not even 30 years old but censorship has been with us for a very long period of time.

The Internet is older than that. Personally, I have been using it since 1995, but it was available to some people since the 1980s.

As far as online censorship is concerned Icke has been deplatformed and many of his accounts have been blocked.

As I said before, that's irrelevant regarding the actions of the Dutch police.

According to you there was no real censorship prior to the invention of the internet if the only real censorship is the one online.

Again, I never said that. You keep on talking about something that never existed.

Icke has been the victim of censorship by both the 'State' and by the 'Private Corporations'. The Dutch Government banned him and have censored his speech as he is unable to say what he wanted to say in person and several private companies have censored him by blocking his accounts online.

He was banned from entering the Netherlands but wasn't banned from transmitting his words to the Netherlands, as it would be if he had been censored.

The fact that he is allowed to spread his ideas and words by whatever means available shows that he wasn't censored by the Netherlands police/government.

Look at the definition you posted. There wasn't any suppression of his words, information or ideas.
It's obvious he can't present them in person if he can't go to the Netherlands (and the rest of the Schengen area countries), but he can still present them by all other existing means.
Real censorship wouldn't allow him to spread his words, information or ideas in any way.

Its not good to be in a state of denial.

I agree with that.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Do you think I need to provide evidence or proof that pink unicorns don't exist?

If you make a statement that pink unicorns do not exist then I do think you should present evidence of that.

If you say that you never saw any real evidence presented for the existence of pink unicorns I believe you.

I can't be 'neutral' as you have said earlier. My position is still the same i.e that pink unicorns don't exist given the absence of any evidence towards their existence.

Well, I can. That's why they say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
For example, if you do not have any evidence that I have an younger brother that doesn't mean that I do not have one. In fact, the largest percentage of the world's population does not have any evidence that I have an younger brother, but that doesn't mean I do not have one.
And yes, I have an younger brother.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
There is no evidence that Icke is anti-semitic and/or a holocaust denier.

At least I haven't seen any clear evidence of that.

The main issue of this story is not what Icke is or is not but a group of deranged and derailed left wing activists who have managed through threats to censor Icke.

It's more complex than that, as it also includes menaces to a counter-protest from a Jewish group.

And an incompetent Dutch Government that instead of arresting or threatening to arrest anyone who disturbs peace and creates public disorder decided instead to succumb to the pressures of the activists.

I agree, that's why I said they chose the lazy way of doing it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Do you think I need to provide evidence or proof that pink unicorns don't exist?

If you make a statement that pink unicorns do not exist then I do think you should present evidence of that.

If you say that you never saw any real evidence presented for the existence of pink unicorns I believe you.

I can't be 'neutral' as you have said earlier. My position is still the same i.e that pink unicorns don't exist given the absence of any evidence towards their existence.

Well, I can. That's why they say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
For example, if you do not have any evidence that I have an younger brother that doesn't mean that I do not have one. In fact, the largest percentage of the world's population does not have any evidence that I have an younger brother, but that doesn't mean I do not have one.
And yes, I have an younger brother.

I don't think anyone should provide evidence that Pink Unicorn don't exist. It's a statement of fact mainly.

Someone who is asking someone else to prove that Pink Unicorns don't exist is engaging in a logical fallacy. It's called the burden of proof fallacy.

Most will take the default position which is innocent until proven guilty. And can't be 'neutral' when basic rights and the freedom of speech are attacked constantly by derailed individuals