JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

9/24/2015 11:24:04 PM
1
Legally the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Who is claiming that X incident happened in the world. Against the innocent baseline that X incident did [i]not[/i] happen in the world.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • That's not how it works. That's where the difference in scientific and legal baseline comes into play. If I claim I saw a shark with 8 legs walking across the neighborhood and my friend refuted that claim, the burden of proof would be up to me a common knowledge and what we know would say the baseline is that it doesn't exist. If you said there were rivers on Mars 100,000 years ago and I said there werent, the burden of proof would lie in whoever made the claim, for or against. In this case the baseline would be the unknown and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by TechnoKat: 9/25/2015 12:32:28 AM
    The hell do you mean that's not how it works? That's exactly how it -blam!-ing works you idiot. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. I.e. The prosecutor claims that the defendant is guilty. The burden of proof states that the defendant has [i]not[/i] committed a crime and is innocent until proven guilty. Holy shit you must me one hell of a dense dumbass.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • You're stating one example. Yes, proof is in the one making the claim, for or against. As I said, if you are the one refuting existance of something you must prove it I can say "the big bang never happened, prove me wrong". Just me saying prove me wrong like a 12 year old doesnt mean it's on you to actually do that. This is getting nowhere as you are caught in your narrow cardboard box, unable to find a way out. Have fun tomorrow (you know what I mean)...I'm out

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by TechnoKat: 9/25/2015 1:20:55 AM
    You're still on this tangent thinking that the burden of proof is relative. That the burden is on the one saying that the other is wrong. It's not. It's not relative to anything. And it's not for or against. It's for. Solely for, and not against. I don't know where you're getting this idea, but it's not how it works. The only one being a 12 year old is you, trying to argue that it is what it isn't. It's not a cardboard cut out box, dumbass, it's an established reality. Someone's view point doesn't dictate who has the burden of proof. The burden of proof is dictated by the established normality. In the case of religion, as was the original topic, the norm is that there is no God. The burden of proof, thus rests on the party stating that, despite the norm, God does exist. It's that simple. There's no workarounds. No shortcuts, no ifs ands or buts, aside from someone who doesn't understand how the principal works showing their ass.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • That's not what the law or statistics would say, but whatever. I told you I'm done. Not letting you continue to suck me into your vortex of one sided thought

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • One last time in case you actually want to learn. Opinions like [i]belief in something[/i] do not affect the norm. You can all think that God is real until your heads explode, it will not make him real. If he is real, like you think he is, then you can prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, surely. But until then, the Status Quo of reality, is that he is [i]not[/i] real until you can [i]prove[/i] that he is real.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • You must be even more dense to think a prosecutor would make a case for a defendant being innocent.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Whoops. Fixed that. Nice catch.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon