{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by TechnoKat:
9/24/2015 10:14:54 PM
1
You... Don't get how the burden of proof works do you?
I'll break this down.
The burden of proof lies on the side making claims against the Status Quo, the baseline of the topic.
The baseline being that the positive, does not exist as part of the baseline.
In your example of Ghosts, the baseline is that we live in a world where they don't exist. Even if I'm the one claiming that they don't exist, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove them. It's on the other party to provide empirical, indisputable proof that speaks contrary to to the baseline.
That's the only way that the Burden of Proof works, otherwise you could make Valid arguments that Dragons, Dinosaurs, Unicorns and, well, anything else in the world be it real or not are still running around and it would be taken as fact and made into a common truth.
English
-
It depends on if you would be saying you are an athiest or agnoatic. Agnostic holds judgement as they see no evidence of god, whereas athiests reject the existance of god. This wouod mean that the basic (baseline) would be that god exists as millions of people across almost every culture in history has claimed. Ultimately, anyone who is trying to convince another person of his position must shoulder the burden of proof. If someone who believes in God wants to convince someone who doesn’t, then he must offer evidence for his case. If a person who does not believe in God wishes to convince a believer, then the burden of proof is on him.
-
The baseline doesn't change from person to person. That's not how debate works. That's not how science works either. The baseline is simply that the positive in question does not exist. There's no if's, ands or buts. That's the baseline.
-
It doesn't change from person to person. The baseline in the unknown would be that there is no evidence of its existance. If you are deviating from that and saying without a doubt it does not exist, you are deviating from the baseline and must prove your case. If some says it does exist, they are deviating from the baseline and must prove existance. It would be no different that me saying without a doubt there are no other planets in existance other than what we have discovered. The burden of proof is on me then to prove that bold statement. If I were to say there are definitely other planets we have not discovered I would need to prove my case. Both are deviating from the agnostic baseline of no proof exists on either side
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 9/24/2015 11:08:26 PMLook. I'm going to be really, really basic and simple with this. So you don't confuse yourself any further. The baseline [i]is[/i] that (Object/incident/action of interest) [i]does not exist/has not happened in the world[/i]. Period. The end. The baseline is that [i]it[/i] simply [i]is not a thing at all, [/i] whatever [i]it[/i] happens to be. That is the baseline. Not (Object/incident/action of interest) [i]might not[/i] exist or have happened. Empirical Proof does not deal in "Maybe" or "what if" or "perhaps". It deals in absolutes. In concretes. So to put it out there, one last time. The baseline is that the Positive absolutely and beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist nor has it occurred in our world. And the one with the burden of proof must prove [i]beyond a reasonable doubt[/i] that the Positive, does in fact exist and has occurred in the world.
-
Legally the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
-
Who is claiming that X incident happened in the world. Against the innocent baseline that X incident did [i]not[/i] happen in the world.
-
That's not how it works. That's where the difference in scientific and legal baseline comes into play. If I claim I saw a shark with 8 legs walking across the neighborhood and my friend refuted that claim, the burden of proof would be up to me a common knowledge and what we know would say the baseline is that it doesn't exist. If you said there were rivers on Mars 100,000 years ago and I said there werent, the burden of proof would lie in whoever made the claim, for or against. In this case the baseline would be the unknown and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 9/25/2015 12:32:28 AMThe hell do you mean that's not how it works? That's exactly how it -blam!-ing works you idiot. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. I.e. The prosecutor claims that the defendant is guilty. The burden of proof states that the defendant has [i]not[/i] committed a crime and is innocent until proven guilty. Holy shit you must me one hell of a dense dumbass.
-
You're stating one example. Yes, proof is in the one making the claim, for or against. As I said, if you are the one refuting existance of something you must prove it I can say "the big bang never happened, prove me wrong". Just me saying prove me wrong like a 12 year old doesnt mean it's on you to actually do that. This is getting nowhere as you are caught in your narrow cardboard box, unable to find a way out. Have fun tomorrow (you know what I mean)...I'm out
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 9/25/2015 1:20:55 AMYou're still on this tangent thinking that the burden of proof is relative. That the burden is on the one saying that the other is wrong. It's not. It's not relative to anything. And it's not for or against. It's for. Solely for, and not against. I don't know where you're getting this idea, but it's not how it works. The only one being a 12 year old is you, trying to argue that it is what it isn't. It's not a cardboard cut out box, dumbass, it's an established reality. Someone's view point doesn't dictate who has the burden of proof. The burden of proof is dictated by the established normality. In the case of religion, as was the original topic, the norm is that there is no God. The burden of proof, thus rests on the party stating that, despite the norm, God does exist. It's that simple. There's no workarounds. No shortcuts, no ifs ands or buts, aside from someone who doesn't understand how the principal works showing their ass.
-
That's not what the law or statistics would say, but whatever. I told you I'm done. Not letting you continue to suck me into your vortex of one sided thought
-
One last time in case you actually want to learn. Opinions like [i]belief in something[/i] do not affect the norm. You can all think that God is real until your heads explode, it will not make him real. If he is real, like you think he is, then you can prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, surely. But until then, the Status Quo of reality, is that he is [i]not[/i] real until you can [i]prove[/i] that he is real.
-
You must be even more dense to think a prosecutor would make a case for a defendant being innocent.
-
Whoops. Fixed that. Nice catch.
