0
2

[–] jibrish 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That works only if you presuppose that no prior events need to happen to lead to such a choice. Something can be influenced and still a choice. There's also no smoking gun (or anything all that close, really) to proof. It's nice to think think it's one way but the claim should not be made unless it's actually true.

What you've presented is an argument for it but not proof.

Something I've said elsewhere in the thread is I'm not taking a stance on this particular issue. It's just tiring seeing the same old suggestive evidence not called as such. It's the same exact logic climate deniers and climate extremists use. There's a middle ground for a damn reason.

0
1

[–] fruitViking [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

What would you accept as proof?