101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 19, 2013, 09:54:44 PM »

Asking for proof is not the same as making a contrary claim.  It is asking the one who claimed it to back up that claim with either evidence or a coherently logical explanation.

For example. 

Person 1 "This coin does not have a tails"
Person 2 "Why do say that?  Please provide proof that it doesn't"

Person 2 did not at all state that the coin must have a tails.  Just asked for evidence to back up the claim.

Now in this case, Person 1 could simply show both sides of the coin to Person 2 to prove the negative claim of the coin not having tails.  Or back it up with some evidence such as "I flipped the coin 500 times and every time it landed heads.  Here is the video with the results of every flip. With eye witnesses testimony." 

However, they cannot just say "Prove me wrong" without supplying some supporting evidence.

So if the person says I've looked and can't find any evidence online of tails on coins, nor do any articles mention tails on coins.

There would still be a burden of proof on the claimant? Or should you move on/try to find the proof that the  coin does in fact have tails.

102

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 19, 2013, 09:21:47 PM »

Let me put it simpley:

Egyptiens are people from Egypt...

...Egypt is in Africa...

...so there AFRICAN...

Dont think I could put it more simpeley there

Thats an entirely different thing to african american.

Allow me to post pictures of a couple of "africans"





and one last one



none of these people are "american", all of them are "african".

Neither of those things are what Yaak and myself were discussing.

103

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 08:50:31 PM »

They have been doing studies.  Haven't you heard that marijuana is the greatest evil on Earth and that if it were legalized the crime rate would sky rocket and productivity would approach 0?

thats not so much a study as retarded scaremongering

so are horror stories.
The truth is scary.

104

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 08:13:17 PM »

They have been doing studies.  Haven't you heard that marijuana is the greatest evil on Earth and that if it were legalized the crime rate would sky rocket and productivity would approach 0?

thats not so much a study as retarded scaremongering

105

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 07:35:12 PM »

That may not be the case if drugs were legalized and their production were regulated.

Good point.

I think generally I come down on the should be legalised side, but not on the should be legalised tomorrow, more should be first studied properly then legalised and controlled.

106

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 19, 2013, 07:32:09 PM »

Isn't the base rule the one making the claim, regardless of whether it's negative or not, has the burden of proof?

yes, however who is making a claim in a long running discussion?

I mean essentially by asking for proof you are making a claim to the contrary of the one posted so there's claims on both sides.

107

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 07:31:05 PM »

There have been plenty of studies about hugh fat, high sugar, high salt diets and MacDonald's definitely qualifies as that.

The other factor is that you can eat McDonalds recreationally but not all the time and have no ill effects, not quite the same with drugs.

I disagree.

what i mean is it's not a lottery like drugs are.

Your first Mcdonalds is harmless, your first experience with drugs is just PROBABLY harmless.

108

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: King Henry VIII.

« on: December 19, 2013, 07:28:53 PM »

Saddam has a good point.

He has a point.

I'm not sure it's a good one.

109

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 04:13:13 PM »

There have been plenty of studies about hugh fat, high sugar, high salt diets and MacDonald's definitely qualifies as that.

The other factor is that you can eat McDonalds recreationally but not all the time and have no ill effects, not quite the same with drugs.

110

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: King Henry VIII.

« on: December 19, 2013, 02:01:36 PM »

He's a troll and he'll go away quicker if people ignore him.

I like trolls.

My parents never let me have a dog.

111

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: King Henry VIII.

« on: December 19, 2013, 01:33:19 PM »

Stop. responding. to. EJ.

Why?
I'm not trying to make you respond to him so why are you bothered about what I do?

112

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion and for-profit business

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:41:54 PM »

Well, they don't oppose organ transplants. The other point is well taken though!

IO thought they did, but I didn't look it up.

I believe followers of Shintoism do oppose it but none the less, the broad thrust of the point was as you suspected that it's a somewhat iffy stance to take in a multi denominational, multi cultural society.

113

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:37:16 PM »

Eating McDonald's is pretty bad for you, should we outlaw fast food?

I weigh 10stone and at one point (in my late 20's) I was eating two McDonalds a week (plus a KFC and a subway) so I'd question exactly how bad it is.

I've never weighed over 10stone and never felt any ill effects.


Anecdotal I know but It does raise questions about whether there've ever been any controlled studies looking at the health issues with eating a normal amount of McDonalods, as oppose to blitzing your recommended calorific intake combined with an overly sedentary lifestyle.

114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:29:27 PM »

I think there's a difference between the ability to prove a negative and the requirement to prove a negative.

In the case of the specific argument there's only small reason to believe that the controls Tom is requiring were in fact in place, especially as we and by inference they doubt that gravity could affect the calibration of a digital scale after it's set.

115

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Drugs should be legal.

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:36:50 AM »

MILIONS of people die evereyday cuz of drugs!!!

prove it

116

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion and for-profit business

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:36:16 AM »

Whew! This is a toughie! Although I'm a Jew, I got 3 degrees (2 BA's & 1 MA) from a Catholic university. The question isn't whether abortion or birth control is moral or not. That's not what we're debating. The debate is whether someone should be forced to pay for someone else's moral choices when they disagree w/ those choices. I have thought about this @ length, & I think I have to come down on saying no. A person or persons should not be obligated to provide birth control or abortions to another person when they oppose it for religious reasons. To force them to is to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.

What about Jehovas Witnesses and blood transfusions/organ transplants?

117

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: King Henry VIII.

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:27:38 AM »

Prove her maried 8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.

Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII

wikipedia is not so much a source as a collection of sources, you merely have to lick the little numbers and find where it's information comes from to determine it's validity.

The fact that you picked Wikipedia as a sorce takes away any credibilitey you have. Thus all sorces tis null and void

I picked Wikipedia because it is quick, easy and agrees with the encyclopedia I have on my shelf. I was unaware that the Encyclopedia Britannica now made articles available free online.

You can argue that the encyclopedia Britannica is wrong if you like but I'd still like the names of the 8 wives from you.

118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:20:41 AM »

I don't mean to derail the topic, but the notion that negative claims bear no burden of proof (or that they cannot be proven at all) is absurd.

Consider the following statement: Barack Obama does not exist.  The statement is not relieved of a burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  Anyone making this claim would be required to offer evidence supporting the truth of its claim.  This is because all truth claims, negative or positive, carry a burden of proof.

Negative claims can also be proven.  Consider the following argument:

1.  If A, then B.
2.  Not B.
3.  Therefore: Not A.

This is logically sound and valid deductive reasoning, and both the conclusion and one of its arguments are negative claims/statements.

If this is too much of a derailment, someone tell me and I'll start a new thread or something.

I have a question.

How would one go about proving that barack obama does not exist?

I mean I could easily prove he wasn't the president if he in fact wasn't since there's only one president to check, but how would I prove his non existence? Would you have me round up every human on the planet and check their names?

119

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: King Henry VIII.

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:18:46 AM »

Prove her maried 8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

list of spouses on the right.

6.

Wikipedia is not a trustworthey sorce

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/261947/Henry-VIII

wikipedia is not so much a source as a collection of sources, you merely have to lick the little numbers and find where it's information comes from to determine it's validity.

120

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 19, 2013, 12:15:34 AM »

This is an interesting topic to discuss, but it's no fun when EJ and Yaakov keep swinging it back to race. That's not what this thread is about.

Well you can thank yakoov for making it that way

Except that the ancient Egyptians, or their descendents the Copts of today, were not and are not black.

First of all African American not "black." And only excep they were. The egyptiens were AFRICAN ... so ... you do the math

well whatever else they were I can guarantee you they weren't African American.

I just told you they were African American

And I just told you, you're wrong.

Prove that im wrong

Prove that you're right.