Bernie and wife under FBI Investigation

[Jin-roh]

"You can't prove a negative!" is a popular rallying cry of ignorant atheists (is there any other kind?) who are desperate to avoid shouldering the burden of proof.

The rhetorical appeal of negative association is the rallying cry of ignorant partisans who care nothing for reason, nuance, or logic.

[Jin-roh]

I've only ever referred to it as a universal negative.
But then again, I'm a bit more precise than the sloppy Jin-roh.

Well true, one can never prove a universal negative is the most technical and precise.

Nevertheless, the connection between presumption of innocence and non-provability of (universal) negatives stands.

The point I tried to illustrate, that Sparko hilariously missed, is that if you say "I wasn't there at the time of the crime because..." and the negative assertion is assumed to have the burden of proof, than the accuser can simply make up a list of endless, unsupported, hypothetical excuses why those reasons don't count.

I'm kind of surprised that presumption of innocence is something that needs explaining. It's true (in practice) that a prosecutor generally won't pursue something in court unless they feel they have a strong chance of winning (e.g. enough evidence), but the whole reason why we have a Jury systems and its laws is to actually decide the matter after careful deliberation. Note, that's not "find guilty or acquit guilty person", that is decide guilt or innocence.

[Jin-roh]

still, as that paper shows, a universal negative is still logically provable, albeit harder and could be physically impossible depending on the topic. But it isn't a logical fallacy or illogical.

Proof of a universal negative requires universal knowledge, in other words, omniscience. Therefore, the only being that has knowledge of universal negatives is God himself.

[Jin-roh]

What does proof of logic have anything to do here??

wooooooooooow.....

What court demands that high standard of proof/disproof??

You asking me to prove something here? A little ironic.

Any court that presumes someone is innocent is also a court that presumes that positive claims have the burden of proof.... because you can't prove a negative.

So the answer to the question is: all courts in the United States, and pretty much anywhere in the modern civilized world.

Look, you made stupid point and got caught. It can be end of story!! No need to try and bring in 'logical proof', pretend it's what courts do and try to bull[censored] way through.

Behold, the core of contemporary conservatism: logic is hard. exclamation points are easy.

[One Bad Pig]

Behold, the core of contemporary debate: logic is hard. exclamation points are easy.

Fixed that for you.

[demi-conservative]

wooooooooooow.....

You're amazingly stupid, yes!!

You asking me to prove something here? A little ironic.

Just asking for an answer. But keep spinning!!!

Any court that presumes someone is innocent is also a court that presumes that positive claims have the burden of proof.... because you can't prove a negative.

Oh, I see. You want to keep pretense that 'proof' in court is of same standard as logical proof. What a dumbass you are!

It's 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', dumbass, not logical proof. Simple basic fact...but libs are great at denying reality

So the answer to the question is: all courts in the United States, and pretty much anywhere in the modern civilized world.

See above!!!

Behold, the core of contemporary conservatism: logic is hard. exclamation points are easy.

Behold, the progtard!! Never wrong, full of bull[censored], constant projecting!!!

[Meh Gerbil]

Behold, the core of contemporary conservatism: logic is hard. exclamation points are easy.

I heard an NPR host on the radio yesterday arguing that the 9th Circuit Court's ruling on the Travel Ban should have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The reasoning was that Trump's Tweets and his campaign promises - the guest had to point out to the NPR host that the court is supposed to rule on the actual executive order and not Tweets.
The host was audibly flustered by that.

The liberal courts have all but abandoned the rule of law and are governing on extra-legal criteria, not the least of which is emotion.

Demi-conservative's misunderstanding isn't nearly as dangerous as the way the 9th Circuit Court abuses the rule of law on a nearly a daily basis.
This isn't a conservative vs. liberal problem - it is a systemic problem that is extremely dangerous.

[Jin-roh]

I heard an NPR host on the radio yesterday arguing that the 9th Circuit Court's ruling on the Travel Ban should have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The reasoning was that Trump's Tweets and his campaign promises - the guest had to point out to the NPR host that the court is supposed to rule on the actual executive order and not Tweets.
The host was audibly flustered by that.

The liberal courts have all but abandoned the rule of law and are governing on extra-legal criteria, not the least of which is emotion.

Demi-conservative's misunderstanding isn't nearly as dangerous as the way the 9th Circuit Court abuses the rule of law on a nearly a daily basis.
This isn't a conservative vs. liberal problem - it is a systemic problem that is extremely dangerous.

No need to get all defensive on this. I think demi-con's rants hurt both our brains.

[One Bad Pig]

No need to get all defensive on this. I think demi-con's rants hurt both our brains.

Hey, it's not like you broad-brushed demi-con as typically conservative or anything, right?

[Zymologist]

The rhetorical appeal of negative association is the rallying cry of ignorant partisans who care nothing for reason, nuance, or logic.

I have to ask...would that include something like this?

Behold, the core of contemporary conservatism: logic is hard. exclamation points are easy.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

[Jin-roh]

I have to ask...would that include something like this?

I'm calling someone out on pretty empty rhetorical statement and doing so indirectly.

Implying that I'm doing it too, is not really true, but is also another fallacy in itself.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

To be blunt, I think the core that makes up the zeitgeist of conservatism has grown so toxic, that if a conservative were to make a statement that is non-partisan, fairly logical, and adheres to empirical (and often easily verifiable) facts, it would be in spite of their conservatism and definitely not because of it.

Now, using my powers of divination, I predict many posts ... perhaps some including news links... that argue that liberals do this too, are the ones who are really doing this, the mainstream media is bad, and maybe even 'because the founding fathers.'

[Meh Gerbil]

To be blunt, I think the core that makes up the zeitgeist of conservatism has grown so toxic...

I'd be interested in a couple of brief sentences as to what you feel the zeitgeist of conservatism is right now.
The toxic parts.

[Zymologist]

I'm calling someone out on pretty empty rhetorical statement and doing so indirectly.

Implying that I'm doing it too, is not really true, but is also another fallacy in itself.





To be blunt, I think the core that makes up the zeitgeist of conservatism has grown so toxic, that if a conservative were to make a statement that is non-partisan, fairly logical, and adheres to empirical (and often easily verifiable) facts, it would be in spite of their conservatism and definitely not because of it.

Now, using my powers of divination, I predict many posts ... perhaps some including news links... that argue that liberals do this too, are the ones who are really doing this, the mainstream media is bad, and maybe even 'because the founding fathers.'

You're not just "calling someone out;" you're tarring an entire political movement negatively. And you repeat this characterization in this very post.

So no, now that you've clarified, I think you did exactly what you accused Mountain Man of doing. I don't think I committed a fallacy.

[Thoughtful Monk]

This is one FBI investigation of a presidential candidate that the network news seems to have no interest in. Although there was a piece about it Friday in CBSNews.com (the story in the OP) it looks like none of the Big 3 have said a word about it during their network broadcasts. What's more, even though he was interviewed for something like 7 minutes on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday anchor Chuck Todd managed to never bring up this breaking story.

I only knew about this because I saw it on Townhall.com.

[Jin-roh]

I'd be interested in a couple of brief sentences as to what you feel the zeitgeist of conservatism is right now.
The toxic parts.

Well it all started when I listened to Michael Medved talk to a conservative caller about the birther thing. You could tell that Michael Medved was really tired of explaining to his own wing of the spectrum that this was making the GOP look like fools.

I liked Michael Medved though. Haven't listened to him in years.

But in short I've been losing respect for conservative for about a decade. This last year really drove the nail in the coffin though.