Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Looking out a window is not proof. If I assumed everything about the earth by looking out my window, I would have to assume there are no deserts, or volcanoes, or glaciers, or kangaroos.
The original claim was that gravity varied over the surface of the earth. It was supported by a gravity map. This piece of evidence was disputed by you with your aforementioned claims that you knew that it was uncontrolled. When asked to back your claims up, you shouted "negative claim!"
What are you talking about? We're talking about the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence argument is used to disprove the boogeyman in your example: "Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman."When you have searched the likely places for that evidence if it were to exist. We have already been over that.
So, is absence of evidence a perfectly fine rebuttal now?
Looking in your briefcase for documents on a satellite does not meet this standard. The documents, if they existed are not likely to be in your briefcase.
Looking on a website dedicated to the existence of bogeymen and explaining the pictures would. The evidence of bogeymen, if it were to exist, would likely be located on a website dedicated to the existence of bogeymen.
I really don't know how you are not getting that point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Absence_of_evidenceQuotein the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...
Who said anything about a child's drawing? I said pictures. Or should I have been more exact for your pedantic self and said photographic pictures?. And note, person 2 collected the pictures. He supplied support for his claim.
Also, if Person 2 did refute a child's drawing and came to the conclusion, Person 1 would say that Person 2 did not sufficiently meet the burden of proof.
Sounds like your issue is not ownership but disparity between those who own more than they need and those who do not have enough to get by.
Ownership of personal property is a moral issue?
So credit fraud is your solution to curbing criminal behavior?
Which criminals?
1.
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
No Tom, that's called "refuting evidence". Person 2 collected evidence and then showed why that evidence is not valid.I see.Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man. This is why they are not genuine. All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity. Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman. Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.
Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?
Person 2: No...
Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
That's an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
I see.Person 2: Here are some reported pictures of the boogey man. This is why they are not genuine. All pictures that have been reported of the boogeyman have been looked at and determined to be either faked or a case of mistaken identity. Therefore, I conclude that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of a boogeyman. Because these pictures are the most likely source of proof of the boogey man, I have concluded that the boogeyman does not exist.
Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?
Person 2: No...
Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!
And how did you feel about doing a nice thing for somebody else?I felt like it was the proper thing to do, but I hardly got an endorphin rush or any type of "good feelings". If I wanted chemicals in my brain, I'd do drugs or masturbate or sky dive or some shit. If my goal was exclusively, or even primarily, my own pleasure there are a lot easier ways to do it than picking up a piece of plastic.