LogFAQs > #905711139

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	My friend told a woman, "fuck her and her ugly ass children."
darkknight109 07/25/18 4:52:45 PM #199:	Revelation34 posted... You flat out claimed they were thrown out. There was no information either way. I have literally never claimed the family was thrown out. I've been arguing the exact opposite of that for a while now. Do try to keep up. Revelation34 posted... There is no such thing as "burden of disproof" That is shit you made up. If you're not familiar with basic debate, I suppose that would seem like it's true. In reality, this has been around for quite a while. Russell's Teapot, which I alluded to earlier, is probably the most famous example. Revelation34 posted... Prove it. You made the claim first (Post 141), so I guess that means that by your rules the burden of proof is on you. Kyuubi4269 posted... Different situation, different responsibility. So what's different about it? If it's OK for kids to hear swearing, why does it make a difference if it's their teacher or some random guy in a supermarket? Kyuubi4269 posted... Based on current knowledge, sure. But if, somehow, a portal to the DC Universe existed and you just left said portal and hijacked this account, it would be 100% probable objectively. Based on what we know it is unlikely, but if that shit was true then isn't. What is objectively probable doesn't match what is probable to us if key truths are unknown. Sure. I don't disagree with any of this. But you've tacitly admitted to what I'm saying - just because two things are equally unprovable doesn't mean they are equally unlikely. Sure, in some alternate universe where superheroes are real, my claim might hold more weight. Even then, though, it wouldn't be true to say they were equally unlikely. For instance, let's take an example that's closer to the realm of possibility. Let's say that I'm actually claiming to be the TC's friend who got tossed out of the bar and I'll use that to back up my assertions. Is it possible? Sure. As unproven as the statement that I'm not the TC's friend? Of course. But are those two statements equally unlikely? No. In fact, absent any proof to the contrary, a rational person would probably assume I'm lying through my teeth if I tried to make that claim. In essence, you're assuming that I'm not the TC's friend and even though that assumption is unproven and founded on no verifiable facts, the burden of proof is still mine to prove otherwise if I want to make that claim. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:905711139] in My friend ... [t:76821379]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>You flat out claimed they were thrown out. There was no information either way. </quote> I have literally never claimed the family was thrown out. I've been arguing the exact opposite of that for a while now. Do try to keep up. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>There is no such thing as "burden of disproof" That is shit you made up. </quote> If you're not familiar with basic debate, I suppose that would seem like it's true. In reality, this has been around for quite a while. Russell's Teapot, which I alluded to earlier, is probably the most famous example. <cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote>Prove it.</quote> You made the claim first (Post 141), so I guess that means that by your rules the burden of proof is on you. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Different situation, different responsibility.</quote> So what's different about it? If it's OK for kids to hear swearing, why does it make a difference if it's their teacher or some random guy in a supermarket? <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>Based on current knowledge, sure. But if, somehow, a portal to the DC Universe existed and you just left said portal and hijacked this account, it would be 100% probable objectively. Based on what we know it is unlikely, but if that shit was true then isn't. What is objectively probable doesn't match what is probable to us if key truths are unknown. </quote> Sure. I don't disagree with any of this. But you've tacitly admitted to what I'm saying - just because two things are equally unprovable doesn't mean they are equally unlikely. Sure, in some alternate universe where superheroes are real, my claim might hold more weight. Even then, though, it wouldn't be true to say they were equally unlikely. For instance, let's take an example that's closer to the realm of possibility. Let's say that I'm actually claiming to be the TC's friend who got tossed out of the bar and I'll use that to back up my assertions. Is it possible? Sure. As unproven as the statement that I'm not the TC's friend? Of course. But are those two statements equally unlikely? No. In fact, absent any proof to the contrary, a rational person would probably assume I'm lying through my teeth if I tried to make that claim. In essence, you're assuming that I'm not the TC's friend and even though that assumption is unproven and founded on no verifiable facts, the burden of proof is still mine to prove otherwise if I want to make that claim. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1