The EU debate - Part III

Seeing as it is impossible to prove that most things didn't happen then the burden of proof cannot be as you claim. In these cases the burden of proof must be to prove something has happened.

 

That's back to front.

 

This is a natural consequence of the way the terms 'Left' and 'Right' are used and the way society is built up. The 'Right' are generally supporters of capitalism and to succeed they need to persuade the voters that Capitalism is in their interests. Fortunately their supporters own great swathes of the media and can be relied on to indoctrinate the masses. The 'Left' generally have much more diverse opinions and have various different problems with Capitalism from believing that it must be regulated all the way through to it must be overthrown. They have control over much less of the media so always feel at a disadvantage. My test for whether a party is trying to come up with the best policy or whether it is simply defending is interests is simply to check whether or how the policy would affect them personally. If they are prepared to take a personal hit then that is positive in my view.
The referendum doesn't fit very well on this spectra partly because the information that people have been fed from the 'Right' has tended to lay all the faults of regulated Capitalism on scroungers, immigrants etc and some of the 'Right' is very conservative so they simply see no advantage in the changes the EU is trying to make. On the 'Left' some see the EU as a bastion of Capitalism which needs to be destroyed. There are also a number of newspaper proprietors who hate the EU for some other reasons. This horrible mix led to the worst public debate in living memory which was only going to lead to a narrow victory for either side.
I have to accept the result as it was a product of our democratic process. But I don't have to accept that our democratic process has to stay in this sorry state for ever more.

 

You're making a positive assertion by saying that gods don't exist.
Saying that their existence is unproven would be the null hypothesis.
You're completely wrong and your obvious familiarity with theistic debates should tell you that.

 

It's the fundamental basis of our legal system and the presumption of innocence.

The state makes the positive assertion with the allegation, and (with some notable exceptions) has the burden of proof.

 

That's why you don't claim things that you can't prove.
Could gods possibly exist and avoid being detectable to humans or our current technology?
Of course they could, so you don't say that there definitely aren't any gods.
You say that there's no reliable evidence that they exist and that leaves the burden of proof with those claiming otherwise.

 

You're making a very basic error. "do not" is not a positive assertion.

 

You can think what you like, that's your prerogative. I will leave it here as you seem to be turning into the "scared Daily mail" reader that you despise

 

Which is why you don't have guilty and innocent as the verdicts, unless you're Scottish and there's three, I believe.
You're demonstrating my point for me. The state claims that you're guilty, so they have to prove it.
You don't even have to show that you're innocent, just that they haven't demonstrated their claim.

 

You're adding positive in there for no reason. It's an assertion. You have to back it up. It's that simple.

 

Because I think that a political decision is a crap one and should be ignored? Ok, then!

 

It really isn't.

 

As those who voted leave think were better off outside the EU, should that be ignored?

 

You can never prove you are not guilty. You may be able to prove that you weren't in a place to commit the crime but you could never prove that you didn't collude to get somebody else to commit the crime on your behalf.

 

It is and I've shown you that it is. You're choosing to ignore it, as usual.

 

The referendum was non-binding and the campaign was a load of demonstrable nonsense.
The MPs have a vote on it and they should do what they've been elected to do, which is to make the right choice for the country.
If the people disagree with that, then they can vote them out at the next election.

 

It would depend upon the case, but it's not your job to prove anything, as you're not the one making the claim.
The state is saying that you're guilty, so it's their burden of proof. The court has to decide if they've met it.

 

That's not what you said. You said that I think 'Judges can do whatever they want'.
You were wrong, I was saying that the Judiciary hold the Govt accountable to the law of the land.

 

You haven't. You've shown that you've tried to shift the burden of proof.

In the example, you could have argued that I'd claimed something is true unless proved otherwise. What I did is make a claim that is logically unproveable, which is why in such cases, the burden falls on the one making the positive assertion.

It's impossible to prove god doesn't exist, but that doesn't prove he does, so the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim.

Yours is a variation on argumentum ad ignorantium.

 

Again that's your view, which suits your argument. Why are there views any less relevant than yours?
MP's like the rest of us went into this with their eyes wide open (they voted to allow the referendum by a 6-1 majority). If they believed the referendum was folly, why did they not vote against it when they had the chance?