[anigbrowl]

You need to cite more specifically, I'm not reading the whole study looking for the bit you think was relevant to the other poster's point.

[gretch]

Okay don't do it. Instead you're just going to believe the guy who cited nothing? Live your life however you want I guess...

[anigbrowl]

I'm not going to believe either of you. What you offered was not responsive to his claim because it didn't address risks to children, which are the topic.

[gretch]

You can’t not believe either of us. He said a thing and I said it’s false. If you don’t believe him then you agree with me.

This btw is the correct course of logic since the burden of proof is on the asserter.

[Falkon1313]

Well yes. So you asserted a thing and didn't prove it.

Therefore the correct course of logic is to dismiss your assertion.

[notch898a]

"False" is your assertion. You have the burden of proof in that claim. If you just wanted proof you should have asked for that rather than make a new, different assertion. The person you replied to took the 3rd option of the tri-state, which requires no burden, which is to merely remain skeptical.

[anigbrowl]

I have yet to make up my mind - a possibility that seems not to have occurred to you.