Some great logic. Fuck the gop.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Some great logic. Fuck the gop.
Remember, Donald Trump has killed is secretary Caroline in 2000.
#justiceforCaroline
rationalwiki.org
#justiceforCaroline
Burden of proof
Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of...
Why cant this shit be properly called out? Say "thats not how evidence works, here's an example of me claiming theres an invisible tea pot in the sky."
whys is it so hard for the media to shut these fucks down.
whys is it so hard for the media to shut these fucks down.
"Prove me wrong!"
I fcking hate that this lazy form of debate has been granted a home in the Republican party.
It should always be met with belly laughter and then expulsion.
I fcking hate that this lazy form of debate has been granted a home in the Republican party.
It should always be met with belly laughter and then expulsion.
No, no, he's GAY and just occasionally a pedophile! Always an abortion loving muslim, though.
What happened with the Philadelphia court case where the judge gave Trump until last Friday to prove their was fraud?
Did you watch the video because yeah, his reaction was amazing, literally "the fuck?"
This is excruciatingly dumb because you can validate just about anything you can think of with this logic.
For example there's no evidence Mark Meadows doesn't dispose of his pet's shit by eating it instead of putting it in the waste bin, so we might as well believe it.
For example there's no evidence Mark Meadows doesn't dispose of his pet's shit by eating it instead of putting it in the waste bin, so we might as well believe it.
Tapper's response should have been "and there's no evidence that you aren't an alien in a human's body. Unless there's actually evidence for something stop wasting everyone's time with made up hypotheticals. Either put up some evidence or stop lying to folks."
The interview he did with grandpa Bernie was hilarious. Throughout most of the interview, Bernie couldn't figure out how to turn off incoming call notifications.
The only instance of documented and coordinated voter fraud I am aware of is the Williamsburg Chassidic community.
In recent times.
In recent times.
There are known knowns and there are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. The things we don't know that we don't know.
This argument is as obnoxious as ever. Everything hinges on the idea that you can't prove a negative, but you can. It's easy. For example, I can prove that there's no red pen on my desk, because if there was, it would be visible right now. The lack of evidence is itself evidence if we can show that there otherwise would be evidence here.
Similarly, if there was widespread voter fraud, what would that mean? There would have to be tons of votes that were cast under false names, or something to that effect, right? That sort of thing, if it's widespread, would be easy for an investigation to find. If it's there, it should be visible, and if it isn't visible when it should be, that's evidence that it's just not there, like the red pen.
The proper response to the "There's no evidence that there's not" argument isn't "You can't prove a negative". The proper response is "Yes there is!".
And if you think all of this is incredibly obvious and shouldn't need to be explained, then congratulations. You are smarter than Mark Meadows.
Similarly, if there was widespread voter fraud, what would that mean? There would have to be tons of votes that were cast under false names, or something to that effect, right? That sort of thing, if it's widespread, would be easy for an investigation to find. If it's there, it should be visible, and if it isn't visible when it should be, that's evidence that it's just not there, like the red pen.
The proper response to the "There's no evidence that there's not" argument isn't "You can't prove a negative". The proper response is "Yes there is!".
And if you think all of this is incredibly obvious and shouldn't need to be explained, then congratulations. You are smarter than Mark Meadows.