I never said I was the only allowed to scrutinize. The simple fact of the matter is that I never made the claim you are asking me to warrant, and so I do not actually have a burden of proof. That is not unequal treatment; it is logic 101.

I also never said your view had to be backed by an argument, but this is a debate forum so it is not an unreasonable request. Basic semantics distinguishes between a conclusion and its proof; again, more logic 101.

Your argument about time before nations makes no sense. It assumes the relevance of previous non-existence as forming the basis for assuming against the entitlement of something to exist; by that rationale why should people even exist? Or anything at all? Moreover, what bearing does that have upon whether nations are necessarily nationalistic?

Funny, how you still have presented no real argument to defend any of your assumptions. Your repeated attempts to deflect your burden of proof just underscore the probability that you cannot fulfill it. I am done spending my time trying to explain elementary logic and reasoning to you, and do not intend to respond further.

P.S. Twilight. Ugh. At least pick a decent piece of writing...