>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.


technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate

accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"

civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context

all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual

and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

>> ^packo:

@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation


Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

We have two 'theories'

1 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to office furnishings burning for roughly 7 hours
2 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to controlled demolition

Problems with theories.

theory 1 - No steel skyscraper has ever suffered a complete collapse due to fire.
theory 2 - It looks like demolition but demolition implies conspiracy.

My opinion is that theory 2 is the simplest theory that explains the evidence I have seen. However Occam's razor isn't much use in this scenario since all the evidence was destroyed before the investigation took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Overview

The principle was often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.


Second time of saying this to you - who has ever claimed to know the exact right temperature the earth is "meant" to be? It doesn't even make sense as a statement. "Meant" to be how, in what way? You must be quoting something a knowlessman has said.

Second time of saying this to you as well - you have the wrong target. The politicians are manipulating "climate change" into a money-spinner. But that doesn't mean that climate change is wrong, it means the politicians are wrong.

They and the oil barons are manipulating you and you owe it to yourself to go out and independantly educate yourself. The data is there qm, and it is abundantly clear that there is an anomalous spike in temperature which presents itself around mid 1900s. The only thing left to discuss is why it is happening, and david mitchell is suggesting that no rational human being would simply do nothing when there is even the vaguest chance that we are contributing to the anomaly.

Hate the politicians, not the science they use and abuse to manipulate you with. I hope you listen this time, but i know you won't.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
---Not the precise temperature--the average temperature.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.
---Don't need to set the temperature--just try to lessen the rate of the obvious temperature rise.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

TL;DR

Fox News story about 1 scientist disagreeing with the entire community over one sentence.

Goes on to quote Fox News poll (appeal to the masses) that not surprisingly shows that dumb non-scientists think that the fact that scientists don't all agree about something is some kind of proof of something.

I N C O N T R O V E R T I B L E

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

>> ^Fade:

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.
http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE
I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?


No, you're completely ass backwards.

The burden is not on people to prove that the fires brought down the buildings. Two aeroplanes flew into the towers, they fell down.

The burden is on those that continue to wail that there was a secret conspiracy to plant explosives in the buildings and bring them down... AFTER some planes were flown into them.

The burden is ON YOU.

And any 'evidence' that the conspiracy theorists have brought up have been TIME AND AGAIN shown to be bullshit.

So, sorry, but you're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle.

Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the one... we SAW the planes hit the towers, WTC7 was right next to them, sustained damage, fell down. Simplest explanation.

Add the planes being flown into the buildings on TOP of all the conspiracy bullshit and you've just made it FAR more complicated, FAR more unbelievable, and FAR more implausible.

And the facts do NOT support any of it.

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.

http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE

I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?

>> ^VoodooV:

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.


Why is it on me? I don't want to drink raw milk. But for those who do then why not let them? It's their choice. Just like smoking pot or eating vegan or skydiving or sitting with bad posture or whatever else you may or may not agree with.

The bottom line is why's it your business what someone puts in their body? And why should it be the government's?

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.

This may be a shaky analogy, but it's similar IMO. to the 2nd Amendment, I'm very pro-gun, but there has to be SOME regulations, you just don't put certain weapons out there in the open market for any tom dick and harry who has the cash to buy. The potential for those weapons infringing on the life, liberty and happiness of others far outweighs the freedom to buy said weapons. Sure there may be plenty of people out there who would use such weapons wisely...but we don't just take their word for it, do we?

If it weren't for gov't regulations, we probably wouldn't even have ingredient lists or nutrition information on our food. Much of our quality of life today is because of these gov't regulations, not because of the free market. Personally, I don't want to turn back the clock and live in the old west days where if someone shoots me, It's MY fault for not dodging quick enough or for not shooting him first. Free market says slavery works too. Free Market says child labor is awesome. Free Market says sweatshops rule! We as a people have said time and time again that some things are more important than profit at all cost and that just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Were you asleep in History class?

If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to prove it. It's a judgement call, you can't just blindly de-regulate everything in the name of liberty. News flash, the patriot act has very little to do with patriotism. The fair tax is anything but fair, and freedom isn't free. Just because Liberty is in the word libertarian, doesn't make it so.

This is another case of someone envisioning their version of a utopian world and working backwards. Well in a perfect world, there are no abortions, so obviously we have to ban abortions. Well in a perfect world, there are no poor people, so obviously we gotta make life more and more difficult for poor people so they are motivated to not be poor. In a perfect world, we don't need gov't looking over our shoulder because we get along fine on our own, then obviously we need to reduce gov't.

It' just doesn't work that way.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheists, atheism, lack of belief' to 'atheists, atheism, lack of belief, logic, semantics, burden of proof' - edited by xxovercastxx

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why?

Bring forth some genuine scientific evidence to match the claims.

Tweaked data, theories and worst-case scenario computer models that suggest a direct correlation between man-made warming activity and a rise in global temperature are not scientific evidence.

A consensus is also not scientific evidence. A consensus is a bunch of people sharing a certain idea. At one time the consensus was the earth is flat.

I've never disputed global warming (which was the original alarmist battle cry, now downgraded to "climate change") OR global cooling, as both occur in cycles over millions of years.

Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored.

The burden of proof is always on the instigator of tyranny. You do have the wherewithal to see where the man-made global warming "religion" is going, don't you? Finally the global tyrants have a way to unite the world. Now they can regulate and micromanage all industry the world over, from which crops will be planted to how many houses may be built to what vehicles will be allowed on the roads. If they had an actual thermostat to regulate earth's temperature precisely I'd hardly trust them with that either.

A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

I keep waiting for an 'experiment' from the alarmists that doesn't have its conclusions already in place and loud voices declaring all debate over before the opposing side is even allowed to speak.

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

One-World socialist government based on a "suggested" link between a human element which cannot be quantified (how much human activity changes the earth's temperature and by how many degrees?) does not appeal to me.

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week? Furthermore, how does the left know that global warming--man-made or otherwise--is not beneficial?

Per netrunner's hokum, if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.


http://videosift.com/video/Saddam-s-WMD-were-moved-to-Syria

There is no way any good liberal would entertain the notion that Saddam moved WMDs into Syria under the cover of a humanitarian mission. Yet the possibility exists and might undermine the narrative of the 'anti-war' left. Invincible ignorance in your court.

^thanks archwaykitten

I think that addressed the burden of proof succinctly.

As to this:
Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

This, once again, cuts both ways. No other human is so dependent on another for it's continued survival and well being. More over, the personal freedoms of the mother are NOT being revoked or impinged at the choice of the child, but by those of either the mother or in extraordinary circumstances a rapists choice. Either way, why is the child to pay for the crimes of a rapist or the choices of the mother?

Everything comes back to when life begins, after that laws respecting human life trump every other consideration out there.

"But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment and you're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one."

Why is the burden of proof on pro-lifers for this one? If a fetus is a person before it is born, abortions "interfere" with other peoples' lives at least as much as forcing someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. It's just as defensible to say the pro-choice side should have to prove a fetus is not a person before they strip it of all of its rights by killing it.

@bcglorf

After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person.

Right, I agree--I suppose you'd be morally obligated to try to end abortion if that was the conclusion you came to. But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment and you're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one. And I think that's the problem pro-lifers are facing--the scientific evidence so far actually seems against that view.

But even if you could prove your judgment (i.e. a fetus is a human being with full rights) to the satisfaction of most people, it raises another problem--a fetus would only have the same rights as another human, not more rights. It could be argued that to force a mother to carry an unwanted child is tantamount to slavery. Basically the state would be forcing her to put her health at risk (complications due to pregnancy and childbirth are not uncommon, even with modern health care--just ask my wife who spent a large part of her first pregnancy hospitalized), stop working for a time, spend an inordinate amount of money on health care and other costs caring for the unwanted baby....

Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

In an ideal world, of course, there would be no complications due to pregnancy, all women would be fully compensated while on maternity leave, and all unwanted children would be placed with loving families that would care deeply for them and raise them as their own. But we clearly don't live in an ideal world.

That's why I believe that all we can do is choose the least immoral path. To me, that path is clear--keep abortions legal. Do everything in your power to make them a means of last resort and hopefully someday they won't be needed anymore.

You are free to believe differently. But if you are going to take the next step and try to force those beliefs on other people, then that's something else entirely. Until you solve the problems I mentioned above (proving a fetus is a human being as opposed to just believing it, compensating mothers who are forced to carry to term, making sure unwanted children will not be abused or neglected, etc.) you can't abolish abortion and claim to be taking the moral high-ground.