The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
@Sleave
This is worthless man, he will insult you post a meme and say something like " huehue " or some bullshit. We are both just losing time here
@Dorkly, exactly. "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "
but looks like the guy has real trouble understanding this
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "
Hey Sleave in which account are you usually playing ? would you mind if i add you ? I am searching for people to play and you look to be around my level ( or better )
dorkly you can add me on this account, i think we will have an easy time because my party mmr on this account is 2.5k mmr
but i think we will have a hard time finding a server that suit us both because im south american and u european right? maybe US servers, I get like 180~200ms there
@Dorkly:
If you cannot see why you're currently making a fool out of yourself, then i truly pity you. You are quoting from a source which doesn't apply to this discussion. I will try to enlighten ur tiny brain one last time, if you are not able to see why quoting rules from that source is wrong, then you seriously have to go to school or a mental hospital.
The rules from the source applies to philosophic debates. The very first sentences is as following:
The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
We do not have an epistemic dispute hence the rules do not apply. If you still are not able to see this, then you have some major issues right there. Sames goes to SLEAVE.
I can't believe how stupid you 2 are, you keep digging ur own holes deeper and deeper, not understanding that you try to argue with the most idiotic source. Yet SLEAVE still tries to resort on a method he simply is to stupid to mention. I really don't know if i should pity you or simply laugh at you.
Might aswell go quote rules from a mathematical 'proof of burden'.
The burden of proof are not only applied to philosophic debates, now tell me something, are you really saying that the burden of proof only applies to philosophic debates ? Its like saying that fallacies are only fallacies if applied on philosophic debates.
"Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims."
Even more, the burden of proof is used in legal cases, how is that a philosophic debate blunt ? The burden of proof is used in your DAILY life man ......
@Dorkly:
The burden of proof are not only applied to philosophic debates, now tell me something, are you really saying that the burden of proof only applies to philosophic debates ?
No i'm saying that the Philosophical burden of proof only applies to philosophic debates. Is that getting into ur head? You are currecnly trying to mix the Philosophical burden of proof with evidential burden or legal burden of proof. Stop quoting from a source that doesn't apply here. How often do i have to repeat this?
It's like saying that a vw golf 1 is the same as vw golf 6, i mean they are both VW golfes right? It's fucking naht. Stop your foolish thoughts, now i'm certain, you are idiots.
@SLEAVE:
yeah, pwnt himself. And you just joined with him. I highly doubt that you actually study anything, since you don't seem to be able to find and use proper source material.
You are saying that you DONT NEED to prove your claim in this case, are you seriously saying that you dont need to prove something you say in a forum ? you know how stupid is that ?
@Dorkly:
Thank god, you finally stopped quoting from a source that doesn't apply here. I start to believe in humanity.
To your statement:
If you make a claim in your real life, YOU have to prove it, if you make a claim in a forum, YOU have to prove it. No i don't. If you stand right next to me and we both look at a red VW. If i claim that car is red, you woudln't tell me i have to prove it. Now you look as stupid as SLEAVE. You literally wrote the same as he did.
Saying that i have to prove every claim i make is extremely unreasonable as you could see in my example.
^
because i don't have to. You can see that you won't get anywhere. You are trying to convince me to prove something i don't have to. You failed so many times already and you simply won't stop. You and dorkly stated pure shit, tried to use source that doesn't apply here and now we are back at the main question. Why do i have to prove it?
There is a rule, which you 2 are trying to use or rather find to quote, but it still doesn't apply to me. You told me that you study some lawyer shit, if that is true, then i have to tell you that either i don't believe it or that you reaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy suck at it. No offense.
If you make a claim and you dont prove it you can not make that claim be true
In your example i am looking at the car, the car itself is the prove, the reason that we do not prove every claim we do is because we just asume that the person we are talking to is going to believe us for x reasons. (Mathematical logic, visual evidence, etc )
but if you walk to some ramdon guy in the street and you say that you have a car, the only way that your statemant can be accepted as truth is if you prove it.
In a forum no one knows each other, none of us have reasons to believe you, so if you make a statement and you expect that to be accept as truth you better prove it.
^thanks dorkly explained the difference, his english is better than mine so i would take a lot more time to do it
by saying "the car is red" is easily checkable, but if you claim to have a invisible dragon who is undetectable its you who have to prove
and when you accuse someone, you are the one supposed to prove your point, not the guy to prove his innocence, thats the whole point
you accused wave for being shadowbanned and asked him to prove he was not, that was fucking dumb and thats why we started all this shit
^
You should try to read. I never wrote 'look at that red car', i wrote claimed that car is red. If you want to use it, the proper interpretation would be 'The car is red' or to make it better for comparism, 'The car is red, i know it for a fact.' And in this case, no, the statement itself isn't that different.
The only difference is that you believe that the car is also red because you can see it for yourself. Both statements do not offer proof, yet you are willing to believe the first one more than the second one because you can see the red car for yourself.
@Dorkly:
That first sentence didn't make much sense. I think however you basicly tried to sumirize what i wrote in the 2nd textblock. And now you finally wrote something that made sense:
In a forum no one knows each other, none of us have reasons to believe you, so if you make a statement and you expect that to be accept as truth you better prove it.
Exacly, where do i have to prove my claim? Exacly, nowhere. If i prove my claim, it will stay stronger as a statement, but thats all about it.
Well you do not need to prove it blunt that its actually right, but then no one can accept that as true, for the sake of logic people should take that as a lie.
"Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. "
again Blunt, you have accused wave for being shadowbanned
its like saying "oh dude that guy has a red car", but there are no ways to check it for myself so you have to prove me that what you're saying is true, presenting a picture or calling me to see when the guy is riding the car
@Dorkly:
Stop quoting from that site, for fucks sake. Other than that, it seems i got some sense into ur head.
@SLEAVE:
pointing out the obvious, eh? I never denied i didn't claim that he is shadowbanned. So why bring up the statement, that's completely irrelevant.
blunt, if you know that, then WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL you asked him to prove he was not? answer me, only that
why did you ask him to prove he wasn't shadowbanned if you know that you were the one supposed to be proving.
i said you were supposed, expected, not obligated
u know, the word has more than 1 meaning (which is not your fault for not knowing what i was referring to)
^
you clearly don't understand the words 'supposed to' then.
You really like making an asshat out of yourself don't you?
To be supposed to means an obligation. It is something that you should do, or something that another person expects you to do. Don't forget to use the verb be in front of supposed to. [url='http://www.5minuteenglish.com/jul14.htm']source[/url]
Is it fun for you to present urself like an idiot? is it a hobby?
supposed to do something
expected or intended to do something; obliged or allowed to do something. You're supposed to say "excuse me" when you burp. Mom says you're supposed to come inside for dinner now.
@Dorkly:You still didnt answer why you expected wave to prove otherwise, when you knew people was not going to believe you.
Go ahead, quote my statement, then read your sentence. If you got some brain you might figure out why your sentence doesn't make any sense.
EDIT:
did it for you:
Blunt:@Wave: you seem pretty upset, how about you prove that you are not shadowbanned? ;3 Oh w8, you can't because it's true. Autistic Swedish cunt is sad. If you could read, you would understand that the exact opposite is the case. I didn't even remotely expect him to proof anything. Your subjective tiny brain didn't have to capacity to understand what i wrote, but alright, i will enlighten you!
If you interpret my sentence correctly then you would have noticed that my question got answered by myself. I never expected any proof from wave because he has none. I know that i'm right, why would i expect it then? So basically you made yourself look even further like an idiot. Why can't you just be a good little boy like SLEAVE and either accept that nothing that you are writing is getting you anywhere? We got a lot of smart people here and i'm pretty sure we got a lot of people thinking how stupid you and SLEAVE are.
@SLEAVE: im leaving chill out bro yeah better do that, you already look like the biggest moron alive.
also: SLEAVE:yea i study law and if that is even remotely true, then let me tell you this: you suck at what you're studying, i mean it. You have been wrong so many times, in the end you even had to admit that i was right and then you basically stopped the conversation with a 'i'm out cuz i know i'm wrong but still have to say something cool so it gets less pathethic' - move.
"Exacly, where do i have to prove my claim? Exacly, nowhere. If i prove my claim, it will stay stronger as a statement, but thats all about it."
Oh i didnt saw this before, if you prove your claim people will accept that as truth, if you do not prove your claim it will just be false, or even if its true people will think that its false ( like they should do ) because that its how logic tell us to act.
So you did a statement, people didnt believe you, and so you wanted wave to prove otherwise.
"you seem pretty upset, how about you prove that you are not shadowbanned?"
This last part is what doesnt make sense, you should never ask anyone to prove otherwise a statment when you know that none believes your statement. Well you CAN do that, but it will make no sense.
Its like if a religious guy comes and says that god exists because none can prove otherwise, you know what that guy is ? a idiot, he can say whatever he wants, he is free to do it so, but he will not be taken seriously.
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
@Sleave
This is worthless man, he will insult you post a meme and say something like " huehue " or some bullshit. We are both just losing time here
@Dorkly, exactly. "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "
but looks like the guy has real trouble understanding this
let's use the occam razor here guys, please
okies, lets use this concept right here:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "
Hey Sleave in which account are you usually playing ? would you mind if i add you ? I am searching for people to play and you look to be around my level ( or better )
dorkly you can add me on this account, i think we will have an easy time because my party mmr on this account is 2.5k mmr
but i think we will have a hard time finding a server that suit us both because im south american and u european right? maybe US servers, I get like 180~200ms there
add me on this dood
You know Sleave is br right?
ninja'd
i think he knows, we've spoken some portuguese a few months ago, i think he is brazilian but lives in spain
Why is portuguese so fucking hard to write ? Holy fuck
Because brs can't write
@Dorkly:
If you cannot see why you're currently making a fool out of yourself, then i truly pity you. You are quoting from a source which doesn't apply to this discussion. I will try to enlighten ur tiny brain one last time, if you are not able to see why quoting rules from that source is wrong, then you seriously have to go to school or a mental hospital.
The rules from the source applies to philosophic debates. The very first sentences is as following:
The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
We do not have an epistemic dispute hence the rules do not apply. If you still are not able to see this, then you have some major issues right there. Sames goes to SLEAVE.
I can't believe how stupid you 2 are, you keep digging ur own holes deeper and deeper, not understanding that you try to argue with the most idiotic source. Yet SLEAVE still tries to resort on a method he simply is to stupid to mention. I really don't know if i should pity you or simply laugh at you.
Might aswell go quote rules from a mathematical 'proof of burden'.
sometimes i touch myself when i see a picture of bieber is that normal
^
depends on a couple of stuff ;x
The burden of proof are not only applied to philosophic debates, now tell me something, are you really saying that the burden of proof only applies to philosophic debates ? Its like saying that fallacies are only fallacies if applied on philosophic debates.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
This is applied to anything in life mate
"Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims."
Even more, the burden of proof is used in legal cases, how is that a philosophic debate blunt ? The burden of proof is used in your DAILY life man ......
^
pwnt
@Dorkly:
The burden of proof are not only applied to philosophic debates, now tell me something, are you really saying that the burden of proof only applies to philosophic debates ?
No i'm saying that the Philosophical burden of proof only applies to philosophic debates. Is that getting into ur head? You are currecnly trying to mix the Philosophical burden of proof with evidential burden or legal burden of proof. Stop quoting from a source that doesn't apply here. How often do i have to repeat this?
It's like saying that a vw golf 1 is the same as vw golf 6, i mean they are both VW golfes right? It's fucking naht. Stop your foolish thoughts, now i'm certain, you are idiots.
@SLEAVE:
yeah, pwnt himself. And you just joined with him. I highly doubt that you actually study anything, since you don't seem to be able to find and use proper source material.
If you make a claim in your real life, YOU have to prove it, if you make a claim in a forum, YOU have to prove it.
I dont even know why i am wasting my time like this because i cant believe you dont get this.
You are saying that you DONT NEED to prove your claim in this case, are you seriously saying that you dont need to prove something you say in a forum ? you know how stupid is that ?
@Dorkly:
Thank god, you finally stopped quoting from a source that doesn't apply here. I start to believe in humanity.
To your statement:
If you make a claim in your real life, YOU have to prove it, if you make a claim in a forum, YOU have to prove it.
No i don't. If you stand right next to me and we both look at a red VW. If i claim that car is red, you woudln't tell me i have to prove it. Now you look as stupid as SLEAVE. You literally wrote the same as he did.
Saying that i have to prove every claim i make is extremely unreasonable as you could see in my example.
@blunt you are dodgin for like two hours a simple question ive made
why dont you need to prove what youre saying in this particular case?
^
because i don't have to. You can see that you won't get anywhere. You are trying to convince me to prove something i don't have to. You failed so many times already and you simply won't stop. You and dorkly stated pure shit, tried to use source that doesn't apply here and now we are back at the main question. Why do i have to prove it?
There is a rule, which you 2 are trying to use or rather find to quote, but it still doesn't apply to me. You told me that you study some lawyer shit, if that is true, then i have to tell you that either i don't believe it or that you reaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy suck at it. No offense.
fine you don't, by that we assume your argument is not valid so it shouldn't be taken in consideration
thanks
i am just asking why dont you have to prove, "because i dont have to" is not a valid answer i think
why dont you have to is what i wanna know
its different saying "look at that red car" and "the guy was shadowbanned and i know it for a fact"
cant you see the difference? like, really
If you make a claim and you dont prove it you can not make that claim be true
In your example i am looking at the car, the car itself is the prove, the reason that we do not prove every claim we do is because we just asume that the person we are talking to is going to believe us for x reasons. (Mathematical logic, visual evidence, etc )
but if you walk to some ramdon guy in the street and you say that you have a car, the only way that your statemant can be accepted as truth is if you prove it.
In a forum no one knows each other, none of us have reasons to believe you, so if you make a statement and you expect that to be accept as truth you better prove it.
^thanks dorkly explained the difference, his english is better than mine so i would take a lot more time to do it
by saying "the car is red" is easily checkable, but if you claim to have a invisible dragon who is undetectable its you who have to prove
and when you accuse someone, you are the one supposed to prove your point, not the guy to prove his innocence, thats the whole point
you accused wave for being shadowbanned and asked him to prove he was not, that was fucking dumb and thats why we started all this shit
^
You should try to read. I never wrote 'look at that red car', i wrote claimed that car is red. If you want to use it, the proper interpretation would be 'The car is red' or to make it better for comparism, 'The car is red, i know it for a fact.' And in this case, no, the statement itself isn't that different.
The only difference is that you believe that the car is also red because you can see it for yourself. Both statements do not offer proof, yet you are willing to believe the first one more than the second one because you can see the red car for yourself.
@Dorkly:
That first sentence didn't make much sense. I think however you basicly tried to sumirize what i wrote in the 2nd textblock. And now you finally wrote something that made sense:
In a forum no one knows each other, none of us have reasons to believe you, so if you make a statement and you expect that to be accept as truth you better prove it.
Exacly, where do i have to prove my claim? Exacly, nowhere. If i prove my claim, it will stay stronger as a statement, but thats all about it.
Well you do not need to prove it blunt that its actually right, but then no one can accept that as true, for the sake of logic people should take that as a lie.
"Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. "
The same with your mmr
Hot 108 JAMZ I swear you cant lose with this radio station they have IceJJfish
again Blunt, you have accused wave for being shadowbanned
its like saying "oh dude that guy has a red car", but there are no ways to check it for myself so you have to prove me that what you're saying is true, presenting a picture or calling me to see when the guy is riding the car
" Both statements do not offer proof"
False, visual proofs are usually valid proofs.
If you say that you are 6k and i am at your house and i look at your account and i see 6000 mmr in your account that would be a valid proof
@Dorkly:
Stop quoting from that site, for fucks sake. Other than that, it seems i got some sense into ur head.
@SLEAVE:
pointing out the obvious, eh? I never denied i didn't claim that he is shadowbanned. So why bring up the statement, that's completely irrelevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyYlJcZPa6I
blunt, if you know that, then WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL you asked him to prove he was not? answer me, only that
why did you ask him to prove he wasn't shadowbanned if you know that you were the one supposed to be proving.
Because Kappa
^
And again, i wasn't supposed to proof anything. You would like me to, but i have no obligation to do so. Get that into your head.
i said you were supposed, expected, not obligated
u know, the word has more than 1 meaning (which is not your fault for not knowing what i was referring to)
^
you clearly don't understand the words 'supposed to' then.
You really like making an asshat out of yourself don't you?
To be supposed to means an obligation. It is something that you should do, or something that another person expects you to do. Don't forget to use the verb be in front of supposed to.
[url='http://www.5minuteenglish.com/jul14.htm']source[/url]
Is it fun for you to present urself like an idiot? is it a hobby?
You still didnt answer why you expected wave to prove otherwise, when you knew people was not going to believe you.
supposed to do something
expected or intended to do something; obliged or allowed to do something. You're supposed to say "excuse me" when you burp. Mom says you're supposed to come inside for dinner now.
source:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/supposed
EXPECTED OR INTENDED TO DO SOMETHING
stubborn smartass
@ Sleave:
exacly. Now look up obligation and you will find out how you took the rest of your dignity.
nvm: you don't have to look it up, read your first sentence. You sir are hilarious.
supposed to do something
expected or intended to do something; obliged or allowed to do something.
^
kid has some mad photoshop sk1elZ.
I would try to make it less pixely. You can do better than dat kiddo.
so its obvious that you are expected to prove what ur saying mate, it follows a logical pattern as dorkly has shown before which you agreed (iirc)
now that we all agree that you were a dumbfuck retarded to ask wave to prove his innocence im leaving chill out bro
@Dorkly:You still didnt answer why you expected wave to prove otherwise, when you knew people was not going to believe you.
Go ahead, quote my statement, then read your sentence. If you got some brain you might figure out why your sentence doesn't make any sense.
EDIT:
did it for you:
Blunt:@Wave: you seem pretty upset, how about you prove that you are not shadowbanned? ;3 Oh w8, you can't because it's true. Autistic Swedish cunt is sad.
If you could read, you would understand that the exact opposite is the case. I didn't even remotely expect him to proof anything. Your subjective tiny brain didn't have to capacity to understand what i wrote, but alright, i will enlighten you!
If you interpret my sentence correctly then you would have noticed that my question got answered by myself. I never expected any proof from wave because he has none. I know that i'm right, why would i expect it then? So basically you made yourself look even further like an idiot. Why can't you just be a good little boy like SLEAVE and either accept that nothing that you are writing is getting you anywhere? We got a lot of smart people here and i'm pretty sure we got a lot of people thinking how stupid you and SLEAVE are.
@SLEAVE: im leaving chill out bro
yeah better do that, you already look like the biggest moron alive.
also: SLEAVE:yea i study law and if that is even remotely true, then let me tell you this: you suck at what you're studying, i mean it. You have been wrong so many times, in the end you even had to admit that i was right and then you basically stopped the conversation with a 'i'm out cuz i know i'm wrong but still have to say something cool so it gets less pathethic' - move.
"Exacly, where do i have to prove my claim? Exacly, nowhere. If i prove my claim, it will stay stronger as a statement, but thats all about it."
Oh i didnt saw this before, if you prove your claim people will accept that as truth, if you do not prove your claim it will just be false, or even if its true people will think that its false ( like they should do ) because that its how logic tell us to act.
So you did a statement, people didnt believe you, and so you wanted wave to prove otherwise.
"you seem pretty upset, how about you prove that you are not shadowbanned?"
This last part is what doesnt make sense, you should never ask anyone to prove otherwise a statment when you know that none believes your statement. Well you CAN do that, but it will make no sense.
Its like if a religious guy comes and says that god exists because none can prove otherwise, you know what that guy is ? a idiot, he can say whatever he wants, he is free to do it so, but he will not be taken seriously.
Plus you were wrong about saying that the burden of proof does not apply here, you didnt even accept that.
It applies here and it applies everywhere in our daily life.