The same way I dismiss the existence of leprechauns: no evidence, and no rationale. The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand that to be a basic principle of logic, you have something to learn. I am under no obligation to disprove a flight of fancy, when the flight of fancy has no substance behind it. If you think you are in a position to judge an impossible proof, you are not in that position.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative ["there isn't x"]. It is only possible to prove a positive ["there is x"]. Otherwise there would be no limit of the claims to be disproved. Do bats speak Esperanto? Do elves operate internet gambling rings? Is there really someone in your closet?
The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim.
I didn't claim to know the truth. On the contrary, I am on my quest to find the truth.
You on the other hand made a categorical claim that you know the truth. so the burden is on you.
Obviously you don't like to be burdened by the things such as logic, facts, evidence or anything else.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative
So it is your habit of categorically asserting things, that you say are impossible to prove. Good to know.
Do bats speak Esperanto?
Do elves operate internet gambling rings?
Questions asked by a guy who does not understand the difference between impossible and improbable
Is there really someone in your closet?
Wait, you are trying to prove that it is generally impossible to prove a negative and you come up with this example? If only you were capable to seeing the irony in this!
The default in lieu of proof of a positive statement is to accept it as not true. This is exactly the standpoint of the assumption of innocence in a trial of an alleged crime. So, put up or shut up. But if you have a disclaimer that you have no idea of what the truth is, than taking your words to be fantasy would be true enough. At least now I've gotten you to admit that much.
And you cannot tell the difference between leading questions and debatable statements. How is the existence of a kill switch for vaxx different from the existence of Esperanto-speaking bats? No difference: no evidence. Are speaking bats possible? Are kill switches possible? No evidence, and no argument. Just fantasy. I guess I am happy at that outcome. You admit you are producing fantasy...and then complain when I denounce it as fantasy. The irony is rich.
You must be great at lawfare, since you are just trying to run in legalistic-semantic circles.
The default in lieu of proof of a positive statement is to accept it as not true.
"Is DeathRayDesigner an intelligent person?" Answer would be to accept is as not true unless he proves otherwise.
"Is DeathRayDesigner a human being ?" Answer would be to accept it as not true unless he proves otherwise.
This is exactly the standpoint of the assumption of innocence in a trial of an alleged crime.
Oh boy, this is even more fun. Pay close attention okay. You don't want to miss it.
"Is the defendant innocent?". Answer would be to accept it as not true unless he proves otherwise.
I hope you realise the absurdity of your assertion that The default in lieu of proof of a positive statement is to accept it as not true., because you can use it to come up with anything you want.
But there is plenty of proof I am an intelligent person. I brought you to admit that your original arguments were fantasy and that there was no complaint you could rationally make against my accusation that they were fantasy. I bet you didn't see that one coming. (I didn't. It was an amusing surprise, but not too incredible when it showed that you were all about lawfare maneuvering and had no overarching principle.)
And what else can you say of someone (me) who writes a competitive proposal to win a billion-dollar development contract for the largest weapon-class laser ever built by the Air Force? I don't think I qualify for the famous Ed Wood line of dialog: "Stupid, stupid, stupid." Did you get called into a year-long DARPA study contract to save it from having no plan of approach, and execute the contract to the approval and admiration of the government study manager? (I did.) The list goes on. The fact that you could care less about any reality doesn't bother me. You are, after all, only interested in fantasy.
Innocence is always the default position in absence of a proof of guilt. You know that. It is not subject to the proof test---since you cannot prove a negative ("he didn't do that").
But questions are not statements, and can not be true or false. And there would be no reason to offer a negative answer to either of them. Just because you have an animus toward me (and an inflated idea of your own brilliance) does not stand as evidence for any derogation.
The same way I dismiss the existence of leprechauns: no evidence, and no rationale. The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand that to be a basic principle of logic, you have something to learn. I am under no obligation to disprove a flight of fancy, when the flight of fancy has no substance behind it. If you think you are in a position to judge an impossible proof, you are not in that position.
The reason for this is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative ["there isn't x"]. It is only possible to prove a positive ["there is x"]. Otherwise there would be no limit of the claims to be disproved. Do bats speak Esperanto? Do elves operate internet gambling rings? Is there really someone in your closet?
I didn't claim to know the truth. On the contrary, I am on my quest to find the truth.
You on the other hand made a categorical claim that you know the truth. so the burden is on you.
Obviously you don't like to be burdened by the things such as logic, facts, evidence or anything else.
So it is your habit of categorically asserting things, that you say are impossible to prove. Good to know.
Questions asked by a guy who does not understand the difference between impossible and improbable
Wait, you are trying to prove that it is generally impossible to prove a negative and you come up with this example? If only you were capable to seeing the irony in this!
The default in lieu of proof of a positive statement is to accept it as not true. This is exactly the standpoint of the assumption of innocence in a trial of an alleged crime. So, put up or shut up. But if you have a disclaimer that you have no idea of what the truth is, than taking your words to be fantasy would be true enough. At least now I've gotten you to admit that much.
And you cannot tell the difference between leading questions and debatable statements. How is the existence of a kill switch for vaxx different from the existence of Esperanto-speaking bats? No difference: no evidence. Are speaking bats possible? Are kill switches possible? No evidence, and no argument. Just fantasy. I guess I am happy at that outcome. You admit you are producing fantasy...and then complain when I denounce it as fantasy. The irony is rich.
You must be great at lawfare, since you are just trying to run in legalistic-semantic circles.
"Is DeathRayDesigner an intelligent person?" Answer would be to accept is as not true unless he proves otherwise.
"Is DeathRayDesigner a human being ?" Answer would be to accept it as not true unless he proves otherwise.
Oh boy, this is even more fun. Pay close attention okay. You don't want to miss it.
"Is the defendant innocent?". Answer would be to accept it as not true unless he proves otherwise.
I hope you realise the absurdity of your assertion that The default in lieu of proof of a positive statement is to accept it as not true., because you can use it to come up with anything you want.
Keep 'em coming, its a slow weekend.
But there is plenty of proof I am an intelligent person. I brought you to admit that your original arguments were fantasy and that there was no complaint you could rationally make against my accusation that they were fantasy. I bet you didn't see that one coming. (I didn't. It was an amusing surprise, but not too incredible when it showed that you were all about lawfare maneuvering and had no overarching principle.)
And what else can you say of someone (me) who writes a competitive proposal to win a billion-dollar development contract for the largest weapon-class laser ever built by the Air Force? I don't think I qualify for the famous Ed Wood line of dialog: "Stupid, stupid, stupid." Did you get called into a year-long DARPA study contract to save it from having no plan of approach, and execute the contract to the approval and admiration of the government study manager? (I did.) The list goes on. The fact that you could care less about any reality doesn't bother me. You are, after all, only interested in fantasy.
Innocence is always the default position in absence of a proof of guilt. You know that. It is not subject to the proof test---since you cannot prove a negative ("he didn't do that").
But questions are not statements, and can not be true or false. And there would be no reason to offer a negative answer to either of them. Just because you have an animus toward me (and an inflated idea of your own brilliance) does not stand as evidence for any derogation.