Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I prefer not to believe or disbelieve things until I see evidence one way or the other.

That's kinda my point.

That's not a logical way of looking at things. Most things that could happen don't happen. The default burden of proof is therefore always going to be on the existence of a thing, not its negation. If there's no proof that a pizza company was providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration, and there's no proof that they weren't providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration, then the correct conclusion is that they weren't providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration much in the same way that Vladimir Putin isn't Barrack Obama's secret gay lover though there is no proof one way or another. Only in the provision of evidence does this come into doubt.

Same thing with the whole Planned Parenthood selling baby parts, there was no proof of any kind of transactions of organic material, yet people believed it regardless.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I prefer not to believe or disbelieve things until I see evidence one way or the other.

That's kinda my point.

That's not a logical way of looking at things. Most things that could happen don't happen. The default burden of proof is therefore always going to be on the existence of a thing, not its negation. If there's no proof that a pizza company was providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration, and there's no proof that they weren't providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration, then the correct conclusion is that they weren't providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration much in the same way that Vladimir Putin isn't Barrack Obama's secret gay lover though there is no proof one way or another. Only in the provision of evidence does this come into doubt.

Same thing with the whole Planned Parenthood selling baby parts, there was no proof of any kind of transactions of organic material, yet people believed it regardless.

...because it made sense to those people! Of course PP would do that, that's just the sort of thing they'd do, those evil baby-killers, et cetera.

Which proves my point - unsurprising news merely provides a facade of legitimacy to already-held beliefs. (Actually I don't remember making such a point before, but now I have - so there)

[Shadowlord]

I prefer not to believe or disbelieve things until I see evidence one way or the other.

That's kinda my point.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Cthulhu, probably

[smjjames]

I prefer not to believe or disbelieve things until I see evidence one way or the other.

That's kinda my point.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Sherlock Holmes

FIFY. Though I don't think there's any specific person the quote is attributed to, just a general common sense statement.

[Shadowlord]

I prefer not to believe or disbelieve things until I see evidence one way or the other.

That's kinda my point.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Sherlock Holmes

FIFY. Though I don't think there's any specific person the quote is attributed to, just a general common sense statement.

Carl Sagan, usually.

[Flying Dice]

Definitely more plausible post-Brit government pedophile sex slavery ring, anyways.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Of course it's logical. There's a difference between 'I have no reason to think X' and 'I think X is false'. Merkel could have a secret love-child with Tony Blair who lives in the Arctic Circle and plays the harmonica. Sure, she probably doesn't, but if you were to tell me she does, and I say 'No. She does not.' - what am I countering you with? Without providing evidence, even if it's just 'MSH makes up spurious bullshit all the time', then my assertion holds no more weight than yours.

What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. That includes standards of what may be considered evidence, instead of conjecture and spurious bullshit. Pizzagate's attempt at evidence is "hey, if you take all the adjectives in this email that say pizza and instead pretend they mean child rape, everybody in the Obama administration is a child rapist". That's no more evidence than "hey, if I pretend Covenant is a paid shill for the Trump campaign, which is a thing that some people are, then their participation in this thread is just to maliciously disrupt us and our criticisms".

If CNN are going to take it upon themselves to decry the claims as fake, the onus is then on them to provide evidence. Otherwise, let the claims stand on their own merits or lack-thereof.

Emphasis on the lack-thereof.

[smjjames]

The onus should be on the article stating the claims.

[PTTG??]

Can we jump right to the solipsism and work our way back to policy from there?

[Shadowlord]

Can we jump right to the solipsism and work our way back to policy from there?

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled.
But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any
particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in
a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events
of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose
meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

^        -- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
^           Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
^           TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

[Luke_The_Hungry]

Can we at least agree that, REGARDLESS of belief and where the burden of proof lies, that the action itself was inappropriate?

[Luke_The_Hungry]

Well that's not fair to say. After all, I've never had a Chicago deep dish I hated. I also never had a Chicago deep dish. :V

[Flying Dice]

But he didn't point the gun at the pizzas.

[PTTG??]

I prefer not to believe or disbelieve things until I see evidence one way or the other.

That's kinda my point.

That's not a logical way of looking at things. Most things that could happen don't happen. The default burden of proof is therefore always going to be on the existence of a thing, not its negation. If there's no proof that a pizza company was providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration, and there's no proof that they weren't providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration, then the correct conclusion is that they weren't providing child sex slaves to the Obama administration much in the same way that Vladimir Putin isn't Barrack Obama's secret gay lover though there is no proof one way or another. Only in the provision of evidence does this come into doubt.

HOLY SHIT you weren't providing a sarcastic example, that's an actual conspiracy theory. And people believe it.

[Shadowlord]

Can we at least agree that, REGARDLESS of belief and where the burden of proof lies, that the action itself was inappropriate?

Sure. Wait. Wayne LaPierre might disagree.