Comment by ruthmarx

> Dismiss away, you do you.

With, as I said, good reason. That's important.

> I don't regard this as a "strong claim" requiring "extra-ordinary proof".

Not extra-ordinary proof, proportional proof. For a strong claim, strong evidence.

Saying the US has more loopholes than other developed nations that exploit and bypass the legal system and checks and balances in place compared to other developed nations is indeed a strong claim.

> Technically it is a claim, I suppose. Many statements are.

Many statements are opinions. Many are speculation. Some are claims. Some are strong claims, like this one.

> I strongly disagree that it any of "speculation" or "Ameriphobia".

Ameriphobia is a possibility, not an accusation. Until you are willing to support your claim, it's entirely reasonable that I should only take your claims as speculation.

> And they are, yet again, dismissive.

Because there is reason to dismiss, because you don't want to support your claim. Even though it would have been less effort than typing your last reply, and less effort than typing your reply to this comment, especially since I'm sure you'll respond to each individual point.

> "All countries are the same" Is quite a claim though.

That was never my claim. That's a strawman fallacy and nothing else.

> You seem defensive.

Just not a fan of wild claims that lack evidence.

> "require" makes it seem like I'm obligated though.

In the sense of any obligations inherited whenever implicitly agreeing to engage in civil debate, it is.

> Counterpoint: as the wise man said regarding when someone disagrees with you online and demands you prove your point: "I've known you for ten seconds and enjoyed none of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from you."

Supporting a claim isn't homework. You calling it homework is you attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me, which is dishonest.