Someone claims that something is poison without proof.
In the course of something being proven, someone is being poisoned by something.
Therefore, it’s possible that someone will be poisoned to death before something is proven to be poison.
How is it fair for someone to have to prove something is poison?
I’m using this as an example to show what it means by “burden of proof is on the affirmative”. Poison is a negative concept in conjunction with removal of life. Something is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
You could have put a bit more effort into the wording…
Anyway, when a life is on the line, I’d say different rules apply than when you’re just talking about politics.
Burden of proof works like this:
If you want somebody to believe you, and they don’t believe you, and you can’t give any good reason why they should believe you, then the burden of proof is not on them. That’s fuckin backwards. That’s so far backwards it’s ridiculous.
So for example, by your outlandish logic involving negative things not having the burden of proof, you’re walking along minding your own business and I come up to you and shout in your face, YOU’RE A RACIST! And then, using your logic, I say that racism is negative, the claim that you’re not racist is the affirmative, so now the burden of proof is on you. Now you have to give me the names and addresses of all of your friends to demonstrate that there is sufficient racial diversity among your friends.
Is that how it works? No, that’s fucking goofy.
Negative or positive, if you want someone to believe you, give them a reason to. If say “X is true” and some part of X can be argued to be ‘negative’, that doesn’t matter. That’s some goofy ass fucking logic. People don’t just have to believe X is true because something about X is ‘negative’, that’s so so so so so fucking silly.
And if you don’t think it’s silly, you’re racist, not prove I’m wrong.
Almost always the case. Proof isn’t easy to come by.
The constant state of the human race.
It’s possible. It’s possible that proof would be found before that point.
But it is certain if proof isn’t sought.
“Fair”? The alternative;
How is it fair for everyone to believe that all things are poison?
“Innocent until proven guilty”?
Conviction is a question of cost/benefit ratio, not positive vs negative.
What are the risks and what are the benefits? “Worst/Best case analysis”. “Threat/Reward assessment”. DETAILS.
Evidence for each possibility has to be provided and weighed.
Alternatives for replacement have to be considered.
Seems that you are trying to make a case for “Rush to judgment”.
Which is affirmative?
Do you think that just because something has a name, it is somehow more affirmative than its opposite?
What if we had named the quality of being non-racist, (altruistic perhaps)?
Would being non-altruistic suddenly become that negative?
To be clear, I agree. For example, society should crack down on environmental pollution much more tightly. Releasing something into the atmosphere before it’s proven to be safe forces everyone to assume the risk of being poisoned.
Ideally, cars would have canisters on their exhaust pipes and factories would have canisters on smokestacks that capture pollution rather than simply blowing it out.
I’m making a case that people’s dignity isn’t subject to utility preference because dignity establishes utility preference in the first place.
To put quality before quantity is an argument by stolen concept.
They have the ‘affirmative’ claim of proving that they’re NOT opposed to tradition, right? It’s consistent with your usage. And you’re right, it doesn’t make sense, that was the point.
And of course, if instead of claiming that you’re racist, I just used the same wording as you and claimed “You’re opposed to other races,” then it’s 100% consistent with your use, and the burden of proof is definitely on you in that case, according to your bizarre idea of what the burden of proof is.
Yea, but that’s not a problem. Opposition does not mean persecution. To claim that someone is opposed to other races shouldn’t be an issue.
If anything, those who expect others to be unopposed by default are persecuting because they’re advocating unmitigated communion which circumvents individual agency.
Conversely, I agree that people if make the claim, then they should have to prove that they’re accepting of other races. The point is they shouldn’t have to accept other races by default.
You’re thinking of this ‘burden of proof’ thing as some sort of metaphysical rule that exists in some platonic rhetoric realm. That’s not what it is.
There is you, and there is the person you’re speaking to.
There are your beliefs, and there are his beliefs.
If you want his beliefs to switch to your beliefs, just saying, “You’re wrong, not prove yourself right” will not accomplish that goal, will it?
Think about it: how in the world could you possible get someone to change their mind by contradicting them, and then telling them the burden of proof is on them?
How in the world could that possibly work?
There’s no platonic realm of rhetoric, there is no metaphysical ‘burden of proof,’ if you want to change someone’s mind, you’re not going to do so by telling them they have to prove their position. It’s nonsense.
…so if I was to claim I used Six Sigma in testing a substance as poison, and handed you that substance to drink, you could claim I’m an unreliable authority? For example, say we’re in a psych ward, and I’m proscribing you medication. You could say that medication isn’t necessarily safe and shouldn’t have to take it?
I’m not saying the goal is to change someone’s mind. I’m saying someone is entitled to be skeptical instead of having to change others’ minds before having someone’s own mind respected.
You use ‘someone’ and ‘something’ excessively. It’s tiresome to read. There are better ways of designating “variable personages” if I can call it that.
So, I didn’t even read the sentence to the end. My eyes couldn’t stay focused for some reason. Seriously, when a sentence gets too confusing my eyes literally go out of focus.
Sure. But you are trying have a discussion or to achieve some goal and that requires more than just taking up a position and expecting others to do all the work . Sounds lazy.
Your description of the conversation with ‘the liberal’ shows how counterproductive this attitude is. You didn’t end up discussing your thesis and he walked away.