The EU debate - Part III

It's not who makes the claim, it's the one who makes the positive assertion. As an example, I could claim god doesn't exist, but the burden of proof falls to those who claim he does.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...racist-posts-football-supporters-website.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jan/22/rod-liddle-quip-auschwitz-millwall

Also see any of his many, many comments about gay people or women.
He's just a blatant bigot.

 

Hey, stop using logic. He's going to struggle with responding to that one.

 

No, they burden of proof would be on you, which is why it's not a sensible thing to do.
You could claim that you've not seen any reliable evidence for the existence of any gods, though.
I could claim that you don't have a penis otherwise and you'd have to prove that you did. Please don't, though.

 

Yeah, it was really tough!

 

That's strange. He complains about racists wanting to exclude white people from organisations and yet you call HIM racist.

 

Prepare for dozens of pages of Dull trying to deflect and bury his latest **** up while Kustard dutifully likes a bunch of posts he cant decipher!

 

That's what you got from those posts?!
The ****er denied writing them, then admitted it afterwards and made excuses for them.
Even he knows that he ****ed up. You don't, though. That should tell you something.

 

Fair point Pete, but you are falling into Napoleon's trap of smoke and mirrors by allowing him to divert you away from the message and onto the messenger.

 

It really isn't. I guess we can add 'burden of proof' to 'bigot' to the list of words you use that you don't understand.

You seem to be matching the profile that you applied to leave voters.

 

In the first example it is up to the person who says there is a god to prove it
In the second example the person would just say they are not bothered about what you think. By all means go round saying he doesn't have a penis. See who cares what you say.

 

True. But it's already been established that he doesn't believe in democracy.

 

You're just doing what you always do, which is claiming that you're right without backing it up.
burden of proof
1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).

You should know this, as you've seen enough theistic arguments to know better.

 

The second one is a sexist statement anyway. He has no idea how I define my gender. Them's the rules in safespace land.

 

It tells me that I am thinking. You on the other hand just jump from spouting one piece of nonsense to the next as your statements get disproved.

 

....small man syndrome.

 

The claim was that there are no gods. That's something that has to be proven.
If someone's claiming that a god or gods exist and you don't believe them, then they have to prove it, as it's their claim.
You're utterly wrong, as usual.

Look into any theistic debate on these themes and you'll see that I'm right very, very quickly.
You'll never accept it though, as you simply can't admit to being wrong.

 

It tells you what you are thinking? What does? The little voice in your head? Put the axe back in the shed, Pete.

You've not proven anything at all in this thread, despite posting hundreds of times.
You make a claim, it gets shot down and you still say that you're right.
Repeat.

 

Oh dear, you've missed the key part.

If you're making the positive assertion, irrespective of who makes the claim first, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence for the other to refute.

There are exceptions, but as you're struggling with the basics, I reckon a null hypothesis would fry your mind.

 

The message was a whiny opinion piece from a ****er. I'm not surprised that it resonated with you.
It's the standard bigots defence of claiming that you're the real bigot by not allowing him to act on his bigotry without saying anything.
Utter horseshit, in other words.