Topic: if the burden of proof is true.....
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #43,320
When anyone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on him to prove it right? But isn't the burden of proof a claim in itself?
Ultimately isn't it just a nice idea?
Ultimately isn't it just a nice idea?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later[^] [v] #572,849
not really because it's easy to prove that proof supports a claim.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,850
@previous (squeegee)
A claim, by its very nature, includes the possibility of at least two different, sometimes opposing, points of view.
A claim, by its very nature, includes the possibility of at least two different, sometimes opposing, points of view.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,851
You make a claim that God exists, now prove it.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,853
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,854
@572,851 (D)
But in that example, could i not do that typical theist thing and tell you to prove he does not exist? By which then you would bring up the burden of proof..... But if the burden of proof is right, then the burden is also on you to prove that i do have a burden of proof.
But in that example, could i not do that typical theist thing and tell you to prove he does not exist? By which then you would bring up the burden of proof..... But if the burden of proof is right, then the burden is also on you to prove that i do have a burden of proof.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,856
@previous (A)
I'm not the one who originally made the claim so you'd be dodging the question.
Now answer it or take your Domestos.
I'm not the one who originally made the claim so you'd be dodging the question.
Now answer it or take your Domestos.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,858
@previous (D)
But here you are wrong, the question was originally about how one would go about proving burden of proof idea.
But here you are wrong, the question was originally about how one would go about proving burden of proof idea.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,861
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,862
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,865
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,866
@572,853 (squeegee)
This is why shifting the burden Of proof is important. One's adversary does not have the burden of proof simply because one's senseless preconceptions are socially approved.
minichan mantra: Sorry, we don't fall for it. Prove it.
This is why shifting the burden Of proof is important. One's adversary does not have the burden of proof simply because one's senseless preconceptions are socially approved.
minichan mantra: Sorry, we don't fall for it. Prove it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 42 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,868
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,870
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #572,872
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,880
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,881
@previous (D)
lol, we both know you have no fucking idea what you are even doing. Don'T let that stop you from posting dr.phil though.
lol, we both know you have no fucking idea what you are even doing. Don'T let that stop you from posting dr.phil though.
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,889
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,891
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,892
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,893
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,895
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #572,897
@previous (D)
have you considered covering that baldness of yours? I am just afraid of the sun reflecting on it and causing a fire hazard.
have you considered covering that baldness of yours? I am just afraid of the sun reflecting on it and causing a fire hazard.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #572,988
@572,866 (C)
sorry, you're not going to semantics your way into tricking someone to say that things need to be proven false.
a person can say 1+1=3, but you need a proof to show how you arrived at that conclusion. you can't do that, because there is no proof for this. you CAN, however, prove 1+1=2
math is a really good place to begin learning about logic because the same sorts of truths apply in general.
i can't believe they don't teach this stuff in geometry anymore. it's like the foundation for understanding the scientific method, reason and logic.
anyway, you can go on believing you're right because you claiming something that can't be disproved, like "there's an invisible man in the sky who operates you by magic puppet strings that no one can see or interact with, but he's there. also the strings are made from fairy kisses."
prove me wrong.
sorry, you're not going to semantics your way into tricking someone to say that things need to be proven false.
a person can say 1+1=3, but you need a proof to show how you arrived at that conclusion. you can't do that, because there is no proof for this. you CAN, however, prove 1+1=2
math is a really good place to begin learning about logic because the same sorts of truths apply in general.
i can't believe they don't teach this stuff in geometry anymore. it's like the foundation for understanding the scientific method, reason and logic.
anyway, you can go on believing you're right because you claiming something that can't be disproved, like "there's an invisible man in the sky who operates you by magic puppet strings that no one can see or interact with, but he's there. also the strings are made from fairy kisses."
prove me wrong.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #572,994
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,006
How much does the burden of proof weigh? Is it very heavy?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 13 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,111
@572,988 (squeegee)
> prove me wrong.
I have no interest to prove you are wrong, you are allowed to believe in whatever ridiclouse things you want to believe in. Like the burden of proof.
> prove me wrong.
I have no interest to prove you are wrong, you are allowed to believe in whatever ridiclouse things you want to believe in. Like the burden of proof.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,113
@573,006 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> How much does the burden of proof weigh? Is it very heavy?
Apparently nothing since some people feel it doesn't exist and feel you should be able to make baseless claims whenever you feel like it.
@previous (J)
Whatever pedophile.
> How much does the burden of proof weigh? Is it very heavy?
Apparently nothing since some people feel it doesn't exist and feel you should be able to make baseless claims whenever you feel like it.
@previous (J)
Whatever pedophile.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,114
@previous (K)
Its not that they feel that way but rather they notice that the burden of proof is a baseless claim.
Its not that they feel that way but rather they notice that the burden of proof is a baseless claim.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,116
The burden of proof is on the affirmative, because one cannot prove a negative. To "prove" that "God does not exist", you would have to be everywhere in the universe at once, and be able to detect God anywhere: impossible.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,117
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,118
@573,114 (J)
I don't see how it's baseless. Go back to whacking off into your neighbors' used diapers.
I don't see how it's baseless. Go back to whacking off into your neighbors' used diapers.
Anonymous L replied with this 11 years ago, 7 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,119
@573,117 (J)
I mean that one can only prove that something is true. One cannot "prove" that something is not true.
I mean that one can only prove that something is true. One cannot "prove" that something is not true.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,121
@previous (L)
Sometimes you can though? Like if some body said they could never die, then they died, then its disproved isn't it?
Sometimes you can though? Like if some body said they could never die, then they died, then its disproved isn't it?
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,122
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,123
@previous (L)
Anyway i can't see how the fact that you can't disprove god's existance somehow proves the concept of the burden of proof to be true.
Anyway i can't see how the fact that you can't disprove god's existance somehow proves the concept of the burden of proof to be true.
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,125
@573,121 (J)
Aren't they just affirming something and then failing to prove it at that point? They made a false claim. Then died. That their claim was couched in the negative doesn't change where the burden of proof should be. They should still have to prove their claim.
@previous (J)
Please provide proof that the burden of proof is baseless.
Aren't they just affirming something and then failing to prove it at that point? They made a false claim. Then died. That their claim was couched in the negative doesn't change where the burden of proof should be. They should still have to prove their claim.
@previous (J)
Please provide proof that the burden of proof is baseless.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,126
@previous (K)
> Aren't they just affirming something and then failing to prove it at that point?
I was just giving an example where perhaps something would have been proven untrue
> Please provide proof that the burden of proof is baseless
i can't even though there is no proof for its trueness. I guess in the end i believe in it based on some kind of a emotional appeal fallacy, like what would happen if nobody believed in it? Madness. However sometimes there are exceptions, like when it comes to providing proof for the burden of proof concept.
> Aren't they just affirming something and then failing to prove it at that point?
I was just giving an example where perhaps something would have been proven untrue
> Please provide proof that the burden of proof is baseless
i can't even though there is no proof for its trueness. I guess in the end i believe in it based on some kind of a emotional appeal fallacy, like what would happen if nobody believed in it? Madness. However sometimes there are exceptions, like when it comes to providing proof for the burden of proof concept.
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,128
@previous (J)
> I was just giving an example where perhaps something would have been proven untrue
I'm pretty sure anon L has it right in saying the burden of proof is on the affirmative. Saying that you can never die is still an affirmative claim. One is affirming that they cannot die. Since it is a negative claim you can only really disprove it though. It would be like saying "God does not exist." You are making a definite claim that you can't prove, but you are still the one making the claim and obliged to provide proof of that claim or some reason why anyone should take it seriously.
> I was just giving an example where perhaps something would have been proven untrue
I'm pretty sure anon L has it right in saying the burden of proof is on the affirmative. Saying that you can never die is still an affirmative claim. One is affirming that they cannot die. Since it is a negative claim you can only really disprove it though. It would be like saying "God does not exist." You are making a definite claim that you can't prove, but you are still the one making the claim and obliged to provide proof of that claim or some reason why anyone should take it seriously.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,130
@previous (K)
> obliged to provide proof of that claim or some reason why anyone should take it seriously.
but my main point is that sometimes there are exceptions, like when it comes th proving the burden of proof concept.
> obliged to provide proof of that claim or some reason why anyone should take it seriously.
but my main point is that sometimes there are exceptions, like when it comes th proving the burden of proof concept.
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,133
@previous (J)
What about having to prove assertions that you make doesn't make logical sense to you?
What about having to prove assertions that you make doesn't make logical sense to you?
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,135
@previous (K)
What? I told you that i do believe in the burden of proof. Except that sometimes there are exceptions like when it comes to proving the burden of proof. I mean do you believe that there are no exceptions? Then what proof is there for the burden of proof?
What? I told you that i do believe in the burden of proof. Except that sometimes there are exceptions like when it comes to proving the burden of proof. I mean do you believe that there are no exceptions? Then what proof is there for the burden of proof?
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,138
@previous (J)
> what proof is there for the burden of proof?
Someone makes a claim. They should be able to show that claim to be true or provide compelling evidence in favor of its truth. I'm failing to see how that doesn't make logical sense to you. People can make fantastical or unprovable claims, but that doesn't somehow nullify the concept of the burden of proof. It just means that people can sometimes make claims that they can't really prove.
> what proof is there for the burden of proof?
Someone makes a claim. They should be able to show that claim to be true or provide compelling evidence in favor of its truth. I'm failing to see how that doesn't make logical sense to you. People can make fantastical or unprovable claims, but that doesn't somehow nullify the concept of the burden of proof. It just means that people can sometimes make claims that they can't really prove.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,140
@previous (K)
> Someone makes a claim. They should be able to show that claim to be true or provide compelling evidence in favor of its truth
Are you not reading what i told you? I do believe in the burden of proof but not to a extreme, because then the burden of proof idea will have to be proven as well.
> Someone makes a claim. They should be able to show that claim to be true or provide compelling evidence in favor of its truth
Are you not reading what i told you? I do believe in the burden of proof but not to a extreme, because then the burden of proof idea will have to be proven as well.
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,141
@previous (J)
> the burden of proof idea will have to be proven as well
How exactly is it not proven?
> the burden of proof idea will have to be proven as well
How exactly is it not proven?
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 40 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,142
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,144
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,145
@573,140 (J)
The burden of proof is its own proof: before you can try to prove it exists, you must already accept that the principle is sound, thus it exists.
The burden of proof is its own proof: before you can try to prove it exists, you must already accept that the principle is sound, thus it exists.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #573,147
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
So the principle violates itself? Are you allowed to make up any bullshit prinicple you want and then say it makes perfect sense but you just have to accept it without thinking first?
So the principle violates itself? Are you allowed to make up any bullshit prinicple you want and then say it makes perfect sense but you just have to accept it without thinking first?
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,201
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,203
@573,147 (J)
I'm saying that invoking the burden of proof on itself requires it to already be accepted. If you reject the notion of burden of proof, you limit yourself to childish insults and baseless accusations.
I'm saying that invoking the burden of proof on itself requires it to already be accepted. If you reject the notion of burden of proof, you limit yourself to childish insults and baseless accusations.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,204
I can prove burden of proof. Watch this, I'm going to make a claim but then not provide any evidence of the claim. Nobody will believe me because I will not fulfill my obligation of proving the claim.
The sky is actually not blue, but is, in fact, a uniform shade of magenta.
The sky is actually not blue, but is, in fact, a uniform shade of magenta.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,208
@573,203 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Oh it sounded like you were saying the concept of a concept is the proof of that concept.
@previous (O)
The burden of proof is not about if or if people will believe your claims. It is about your obligation to prove that claim.
Oh it sounded like you were saying the concept of a concept is the proof of that concept.
@previous (O)
The burden of proof is not about if or if people will believe your claims. It is about your obligation to prove that claim.
Anonymous O replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,210
@previous (J)
The obligation is only there because I want my claim to be believed.
Nobody believing me because I failed my obligation is proof that such an obligation exists.
The obligation is only there because I want my claim to be believed.
Nobody believing me because I failed my obligation is proof that such an obligation exists.
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,211
@previous (O)
but then there are people who do believe without proof. Does that prove that there is an obligation to believe without evidence?
but then there are people who do believe without proof. Does that prove that there is an obligation to believe without evidence?
Anonymous O replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,212
Anonymous J replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,213
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,222
Could I carry the burden of proof around in a pickup truck?
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #573,301
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #573,702
@573,119 (L)
> One cannot "prove" that something is not true.
Yes, you can. If we're sitting face to face and I claim to have a living, fire-breathing dragon in my left hand, you can simply point to my empty palm and say "no, you don't".
> One cannot "prove" that something is not true.
Yes, you can. If we're sitting face to face and I claim to have a living, fire-breathing dragon in my left hand, you can simply point to my empty palm and say "no, you don't".
penthief !e6iiu.pZHU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 22 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #574,002
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 3 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,092
@previous (penthief !e6iiu.pZHU)
No shit
I said duh at the end of the post when there is nothing left to read afterwards
No shit
I said duh at the end of the post when there is nothing left to read afterwards
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,093
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,104
penthief !e6iiu.pZHU replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,302
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,933
penthief !e6iiu.pZHU replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,940
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,941
penthief !e6iiu.pZHU replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #575,944
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,068
Could I use the burden of proof as a weapon?
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,069
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx)
Probably not, most high-level trolls effortlessly dodge the burden of proof when it is wielded against them. You might be able to swat down a few people actually seeking knowledge and compel them to go seek actual knowledge with it though...
So, you can kill the grunts with it, but you need a different weapon for the boss.
Probably not, most high-level trolls effortlessly dodge the burden of proof when it is wielded against them. You might be able to swat down a few people actually seeking knowledge and compel them to go seek actual knowledge with it though...
So, you can kill the grunts with it, but you need a different weapon for the boss.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,070
@previous (K)
So it's really of quite limited use as a weapon, then? Since, not going to lie, most of the trolls around here are quite high-level.
So it's really of quite limited use as a weapon, then? Since, not going to lie, most of the trolls around here are quite high-level.
Anonymous K replied with this 11 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,074
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx)
It's like arguing with young-earth creationists about the literal truth of the Bible. They are just going to invent reason after reason to deny any sort of reality that may interfere with their beliefs. I'd stick with the Scythe if I were you. It's one of the most dangerous weapons ever designed.
It's like arguing with young-earth creationists about the literal truth of the Bible. They are just going to invent reason after reason to deny any sort of reality that may interfere with their beliefs. I'd stick with the Scythe if I were you. It's one of the most dangerous weapons ever designed.
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,082
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,092
@575,944 (penthief !e6iiu.pZHU)
My main mana offensive
It means that when you die I can capture your soul into my sword which powers it
My main mana offensive
It means that when you die I can capture your soul into my sword which powers it
penthief !e6iiu.pZHU replied with this 11 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,097
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,098
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,101
penthief !e6iiu.pZHU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,106
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,107
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #576,110
@576,101 (RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I cast fireball!
What is X equal to and how many targets have you chosen? I may have responses.
> I cast fireball!
What is X equal to and how many targets have you chosen? I may have responses.
