General Discussion

And no, you never said that violence happened there. That would have been patently ridiculous and, frankly, surprising.

No evidence is needed to maintain the presumption that no violence happened there. You can't prove a negative. Any evidence confirming that presumption would only reinforce it. Yet, you found the evidence you saw with your own eyes insufficient to maintain the presumption expected of you in the first place. You are expecting conditions to be met before you get to the starting point. It doesn't work that way.

It is on you to provide the evidence to challenge this presumption, not the other way around. Hence my question: "Where is the proof of violence happening there?" Of course, we both know it's nowhere to be found, and this is what makes my question rhetorical.

Wait... do you even know what a rhetorical question is?

I can't believe the time I am wasting on parsing the most elementary things into such tiny increments for easy digestion... and having to do the same thing a whole bunch of times, one after the other.