If the application of an idea is both in-line with its definition and shown to be inconsistent in foundation or correctness then the idea is either wrong, not sufficiently defined, or both. In lieu of a redefinition, it can be presumed wrong.
These are the natural shocks that test hypothesis and theory.
I mean… just about everything that’s old-world, north of Africa, west of the Urals, and north/west of Istanbul is considered Europe.
The extent of Europe is very broad, with even Iceland being considered a part of it; and it isn’t bound politically. For example, Denmark is considered to be in Europe but Greenland (a territory of Denmark) isn’t, but then again, the Faroe Islands (another territory of Denmark) is.
You might be thinking more along the lines of the EU (European Union) which is the third iteration of the dominant political/economic entity in much of Europe, born in 1993 when it legally became a person. Where the EU actually reaches across the entire globe due to overseas regions, collectives, and municipalities.
That is not the false dichotomy you proposed, you just moved the goal posts to make it an actual dichotomy.
That is a false dichotomy. If you accept the idea of the existence of cases with certainty there is the possibility of the restriction of the use of the death penalty to those cases.
I don’t believe pointing out a case where certainty is ensured missed the point; rather, it argues the point. He’s giving an example where execution would be okay due to their being absolute certainty, not arguing that it should be the same outcome where there isn’t absolute certainty.
North/south would be latitude, so they could easily and accurately position them correctly with respect to that aspect.
That’s moving the goal posts and completely irrelevant; of course it’s case-by-case when it comes to what constitutes a ‘uniform’, or else no clothes would be considered non-deductible as anything could be a part of a uniform.