burden of proof

excuse for debate club fags and defendents in court, amirite?

#33, the dipshit here is YOU.  Unsupported claims that REQUIRE evidence by their very absurdity is the very essence of truth.  If we DON'T abide by that principle, then I'll just pull Gilgamesh out of my ass (hey, PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST, cocko!) and inevitably he'll make the pronouncement that you HAVE TO DIE.  Here comes the guy with a gun.  What do you think about your "i herd u liek lojik" bullshit NOW?

You can hole up with your fucking semen-stained Hurley textbook and tell yourself that precision gets you everywhere, but you ONLY miss the target precisely.  The world of the ivory tower only has TACTICS for us, but not STRATEGY.  I'm talking the latter, and you're insisting on the former.  Confusing the two is a great way to LOSE battles and wars, fucko!

Goddamn.  What, are you in your fucking twenties or something?  Get wise.

>>35

Calm the fuck down. If I claim that it rained in Baltimore today, that claim is subject to the exact same burden of proof as your overused Gilgamesh example. "Absurdity" is an arbitrary quality and has nothing to do with burden of proof, and now you're blathering some vague shit about "tactics" and "strategy?" Please. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

Dead wrong, #36.  Rain is a common entity in Human existence; so are Human cities; and as well, Baltimore exists.  In extreme and high contrast, no one has produced evidence of Gilgamesh.  The difference between the two is that ABSURDITY thing that you falsely claim is so fucking difficult to determine.  Gilgamesh's existence is therefore held to a HUGE standard of proof over "it rained in Baltimore today".

Once more, we clearly see that your chanfaggotry has hobbled your ability to form cogent arguments.  If you got a college degree out of your I-Are-Passing-Logic-Klass deal, got get your fucking money back since you're filled with a doltish, EGGHEAD-LIKE FAIL.

Like I said before, you're probably just some twentysomething who's so enamored by academic pursuits that you're literally unable to apply intellectual details to the real world.  Outside the textbook and the ivory tower, the details of REALITY are far too messy to be so precisely categorized and used.  That's why WISDOM is so useful.  WISDOM in fact is a tool for detecting the limits of INTELLECT.

♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ... I'm fucking waiting for your stupid answers, dickeaters.

>>37

Do you even know what burden of proof means, fuckwit? I still have to PROVE that it rained in Baltimore in order for my statement to be justified, just as you have to PROVE your Gilgamesh BS. The fact that the evidence for my assertion is much easier to come by DOES NOT MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE- if I don't have this evidence available to me, and if I have no past knowledge of the climate in that region in order to at least make an educated guess, then my assertion is meaningless. It doesn't matter how familiar a statement is to collective human experience, or whatever other bullshit excuse you want to make; all statements are subject to the same burden of proof, period.

Now why don't you get your head out of your ass and try reading a book? Oh, sorry, I forgot- books are those nasty little things used by twenty-something ivory-tower eggheads who don't know anything. You're WAY too good for reading, aren't you? You've got WISDOM and everything. WISDOM! (All caps make it EXTRA IMPORTANT!)

Egads, fucknutball!  If you insist on playing this fucking stupid, then I'm going to have to keep treating you like an assball.

Let's make the comparison between proving rain in Baltimore and proving Gilgamesh.  Hmm!  A quick check at www.weather.com for Baltimore and ... WE HAVE FUCKING PROOF IN SECONDS!  A quick check at www.proofofgilgamesh.com ... OH WAITAMINNUT!  There just isn't any fucking proof for fucking Gilgamesh, which any fucking retard would have fucking known SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD!

You keep dancing around the requirement, but sensible men challenge other men to produce evidence of their crazy fucking assertions.  The ones who can't put up the evidence have to literally shut the fuck up while being drowned in the howls of laughter at their stupidity.  Absurdity (which I proved above is eminently classifiable) shifts the burden of proof.

The absence of proof for what should be a very provable assertion is more than enough rational evidence itself for the reasonable man to reject the assertion OUTRIGHT.  Yes, that's right, bitch!  I just said the absence of proof IS PROOF!  For something that should be shitting out megatons of proof, absence of such proof is assuredly good enough to say "ah it doesn't fucking exist".  Elephants don't fucking TIPTOE or LEVITATE, you stupid fuck!  No elephant tracks = no fucking elephant!

You academic twentysomething CHILDREN obviously don't like that, but thank Gilgamesh that you don't run the fucking world.  (What a fucking travesty THAT would be if it happened!)

P.S.  Look, bastard, books are filled with lies.  I can go to any bookstore and get thousands of books filled with lies, usually culled from sections labeled "fiction", "religion" and "investing".  That's yet another reason why I howl with laughter when the goddies produce A BOOK as their evidence for their particular giant alien space monster.  More than ever, Gilgamesh just SCREAMS the requirement for GREAT GOBS OF PROOF.

No wonder America is seeing a rise of religious stupidity.  You fuckfaces actually think you can rely on baseless claims since some stupid "Logik Kourse" told you it was OK.  Well, it's not OK, fuckfaces!  Keep saying absurdity has credit in the proof game, and I'm going to keep laughing your foolish asses out the door!

>>40
Capitalizing RANDOM words makes your argument VALID.

>>40

*sigh*

Okay, troll, you are now on the point of:

1. Continually inventing dumber and more meaningless insults ("fucknutball?") and screaming them at me as if they meant something, a true mark of someone who has run out of real arguments (even on 4chan).

2. Completely fucking ignoring my point that I still need to prove it rained for my assertion to be valid, instead spewing some nonsense about "HURR HURR LUK HOW EZ IT IZ 2 PRUV, DATZ DA SAME AZ NOT HAVIN 2 PRUV IT AT AL!" Do you even listen to yourself?

3. Confirming my suspicion that you hold "logik" and REAL scientific methodology (yes, the academic kind) in the highest contempt, and have a deep-seated fear of books. This results in your complete inability to defend anything other than your disturbing, warped views of reason and justifiability.

Go ahead, troll, continue sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming that I'm wrong- I'm done feeding you. Head over to the bowl of dicks thread if you're hungry.

>>29
"absurd claims do NOT justify themselves by challenging you to find their suspiciously missing proof!"

correct and you're missing the point, they are not justified, but that doesn't make them wrong.  there are three options:
a) a claim is true
b) a claim is false
c) the truth of a claim has not been determined.

option c is where you are until you either prove or disprove it.

"In the broader argument, "debate club fags and defendents in court" cannot make absurd claims without providing evidence for their assertions.  PERIOD.  If you fuckasses really think differently, then good luck on your day in court."

Somewhat correct and missing the point.  Inability to provide proof in many practical and life situations leads to things like "Assumed innocent until proven guilty." and "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt".  You don't understand what proof is.  Also, debate club fags and defendents can make absurd claims all they want, there is no cosmic force stopping them.  They're just making shit up that may or may not be true, and not being able to verify it probably won't help their case.

>>32
"The whole point of logic is that is has a system of rules that only guide our social actions."

You don't know what logic is.  You've never had a logic class.  You've never read a logic book.  You've never had a higher level math class.  These are all claims I would bet are likely.  But I can't prove them.

"Logicians are NOT the people who run much in society."
I don't disagree.  Unfortunately for you, they are a good source to talk to about what is and what isn't logical, since they've studied logic, a subject somehow entirely foreign to your "reasoning"- for lack of a better word.

"Claims require evidence..."
No.  Claims do not "require evidence".  Maybe YOU require evidence to believe a claim, but a claim is not something which requires evidence, unless it is to be believed true or untrue by a person.  Also, no one here is retarded enough to believe absurd claims.  The difference is, you're a retard and you believe the opposite of a claim without proof just because you think it's absurd.  I see an absurd claim and say, "well, thats probably not true, given what I take myself to know currently, but I haven't seen any direct proof against it, so it's a possibility."  You can ask me things like whether or not there are unicorns, I will tell you that I do not know, or that I do not think so.  I will never tell you no, there are absolutely not any unicorns.  I don't have proof of that.

>>35
I'm in my twenties.  If you're older: read a damn logic book.  If you're younger: read a damn logic book.  If you're the same age: read a damn logic book.  Stop embarassing yourself.

>>37
I'm not 39, 36, 33, or 31, not that I can prove that or you need to believe me, but just putting it out there.

If I show you a picture of me holding a dog, and I tell you that I have a dog, is that an absurd claim?

Protip: your answer should be no, because lots of people have dogs and its not unreasonable to think that I do, especially when I've provided some evidence.  Oh wait, the answer should be yes it is absurd, because I don't have a dog.  Hey!  Your plan fails this experiment, and now you're being unscientific too!

>>40
"but sensible men challenge other men to produce evidence of their crazy fucking assertions."
I agree.  Do you know why they do it?  Because they want to make sure you can prove your claims before they consider them seriously.  If you can't prove your claim is true, that doesn't imply that it is false however.  Deal with it.

"I can go to any bookstore and get thousands of books filled with lies, usually culled from sections labeled 'fiction', 'religion' and 'investing'."
I'm not disagreeing.  I'm not sure why you would say this though, since it's not very relevant to you failing at understanding what truth is.

"No wonder America is seeing a rise of religious stupidity.  You fuckfaces actually think you can rely on baseless claims since some stupid "Logik Kourse" told you it was OK.  Well, it's not OK, fuckfaces!  Keep saying absurdity has credit in the proof game, and I'm going to keep laughing your foolish asses out the door! "

Here's your fundamental failure.  You think, just because I'm telling you that something isn't untrue when its not proven, that I believe it.  I'm the same atheist you keep being wrong about again and again.  You still make the same mistakes, and you still argue like shit.  You don't understand truth or proof, and you just make up random crap to respond to.  I never said absurdity "has credit".  I never said you should believe a claim when its not proven.  If you had half a clue, you would realize that I was saying the exact opposite: that you SHOULD NOT believe something is true without proof.  So you shouldn't believe "I have a dog" is true without proof, and you shouldn't believe "I do not have a dog" is true without proof.  Do you get this yet?  Or do you want to keep embarassing yourself.

#42, when you act like a fucknutball, expect to be called a fucknutball.  Your ghei whining at a perfectly valid labeling event is fairly sad, but about the speed of some BOOKWORM who knows nothing of practical application.

You still failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary, and what I said hold utterly true no matter what some fucking academic thinks otherwise, to wit:

1. We are completely correct in rejecting ridiculous assertions that are also devoid of proof even when sought.  Humans are busy and lie a lot, and gay logic theories don't account for dishonesty and practicality.  If logic texts were followed to the letter, nothing would get done in society.

2. The very nature of some of these ridiculous assertions is that they would be producing huge amounts of evidence, hence the existence of ZERO evidence is itself evidence that denies the assertions summarily.

My personal library would astound you, but just go right on ahead and keep thinking that somebody who reads a lot can actually disagree with your limited views.  You exhibit excessive academic bias.  That's the very worst thing about academics -- the more they study, the less able they become for detecting their own biases (at least, outside of identification of sources of experimental error).

REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK

"Absurdity (which I proved above is eminently classifiable)"

"(BTW, absurdity is not "ill-defined".  Find me a fucking Unicorn or Jewgod and then we'll talk about how easy it is to get around absurdity.)"

A proof to rival the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra in its sheer rigor and elegance.

"The absence of proof for what should be a very provable assertion is more than enough rational evidence itself for the reasonable man to reject the assertion OUTRIGHT."

Fermat's Last Theorem - Conjectured in 1637, proven in 1994.  NEVAR FORGET

Since your particular ax to grind seems to be religion, though the topic was about logic, let's talk about that.  Deducing physical principles from evidence is a small portion of the logic that the human brain performs.  Even a field as closely related to scientific thought as mathematics deals with rigorous definitions of concepts which can't be said, in any strict scientific sense, to "exist," and what follows from those concepts.  The question of evidence already becomes moot when one strays as far from science as mathematics.

Even logic becomes severely limited as an intellectual tool when one enters the realm of value judgments.  A statement as fundamental as "it is good for a person to be alive" cannot be supported logically or by any kind of evidence, unless one passes the buck by defining "good" elsewhere.  So, the entire construct of value judgments (a given condition is desirable) relies, at its core, on axiom, though anon confesses a preference for systems with as few axioms as possible, and most of the main tenets following from the axioms by logic.  A system of value judgments is pointless if not applied to the practical question "given a set of conditions S, (restricted to those physically possible or even to those above a certain threshold of probability), what action should I take in order to achieve the 'best' set of conditions S'?"  That additional layer of logical complexity makes our system of value judgments into a "morality."

A popular method of constructing morality among Western and Middle Eastern cultures seems to be first defining "good."  As an example:  "it is good to be able to do things (potency)," "it is good to know things," "it is good to desire good for all of one's society, not just oneself (benevolence)."  After defining all of these attributes and assuming them to have an order relation, said culture than hypothesizes the existence of a being maximizing all of them.  From that hypothesis, morality is left as attempting to determine, through logic, what such a being would have Person A do when confronted with S.

Since most people familiar with formal logic realize that morality and mathematics are only two of many intellectual disciplines requiring the practitioner to make "baseless assumptions (PROTIP:  it's called "choosing axioms)," they don't have problems with what certain people choose as their axioms for everyday living.  In fact, they find bluster about evidence and logic in topics to which neither applies irrelevant and ultimately annoying.