• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Yes, exactly:

    Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim.

    In your initial response, you made a claim that needs justification:

    Hell, if you’d stopped to think for half a second you’d realize all that will do is increase patient costs and endanger the blood supply.

    You are now demanding that I either accept your unsubstantiated claim, or prove it false. As the link you have spammed in response demonstrates, your argument is fallacious, and the burden of proving your initial claim rests with you.

    The only claim arising before yours is the idea that paying people for blood could increase the blood supply. Technically, that claim does require proof, and technically, that proof has not been provided. But, the concept of “basic economics” has been so well demonstrated that refusing to accept that premise would be a profound exercise of intellectual dishonesty.