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.
I brought you to admit that your original arguments were fantasy
Huh, what are you smoking? I haven't changed one iota from my original position.
no complaint you could rationally make against my accusation that they were fantasy
You said "No kill-switch". You are yet to back it up. Still waiting.
Oh right, you gave an absurd reason about "burden of proof" and "you don't need to prove a negative". It makes sense why you suffer from such a misconception after reading this:
BTW, you should tell your notion of not needing to prove a negative assertion to the mathematicians who worked for 350 years to prove Fermat's last theorum. They could have simply said "There is no solution for n>2 unless someone can prove it exists. Done". Its quite amazing how all this just goes over your head, though.
when it showed that you were all about lawfare maneuvering
Lawfare? You do realise this is not a court-room right? This is a debate based on logic. But you are confusing "legal" and "logical". Hence you are erroneously attempting to apply legal doctrines such as "burden of proof in a trial" to this debate, and "presumption of innocence in a trial" to "assumption of truth for the negative assertion".
No, we are not in a courtroom. We are debating using logic. If you assert that you categorically know the truth, you back it up. Otherwise its "trust me bro".
As for your attempts to prove to a complete stranger on the Internet that you are intelligence because you were on a team writing proposals and because you won "admiration and approval" from some "government study manager" ?
Really? You actually took that bait? Okay, since you have put yourself in this position (and assuming even one word of anything you say is not from a fantasyland), tell me how being on a team writing proposal makes you intelligent? We used to task the grunt work of a proposal to the newest hires. At best it makes you competent enough to do the paperwork.
And admiration and approval? How does that have any correlation to intelligence? Usually "admiration" and "approval" is reserved for those who don't actually achieve much. Like a consolation prize.
But I can see why admiration and approval is so important for you.
I didn't really expect anything of substance from you from the beginning, and you have proven me right. Unless you can share your extensive research into the vaccines and how there is no possibility of a kill switch of any kind in it - this includes analysing the ingredients of all the various vaccine batches, and testing it under wide range of conditions, frequencies etc, and going through all bioweapon patents to rule out the applicability of each of those - you wont have anything intelligent to add to this already tedious and repetitive "I am admired and I got approved. I know things!!" session.
Typical response when someone produces credentials and track record: deny that such things are relevant to what one says. A perfect argument for those who have neither credentials nor track record.
Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry, and it is called "legalistic" because it often shows up in courtrooms. You are a natural.
But now you do make a lie. You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy, and seemed rather proud of it. But you don't know logic as well as you imagine. The problem of proving a negative is real and not to be discounted. A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)
You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy
My remark (nice to see you finally use this word) is meant exactly, word to word, as I typed it and not an iota different. First you assumed it was a declaration. Now you are assuming its a fantasy. As always, both your assumptions are wrong. The reason why you keep making these mistakes is because you cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and a "factual statement". You cannot differentiate between a piece of evidence and proof of crime.
Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry
And yet you keep trying to apply "burden of proof" from a courtroom to a logical debate on a Internet forum. Good to see you are acknowledging this now.
A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)
Its cute to see that you have now embarked on yet another attempt to prove something that is built on so many levels of fallacies. The most obvious ones that surely even you cannot fail to comprehend:
You assume these shots have just mRNA and nothing else
You assume that if you argue that one mode of kill switch is impossible (microwaves and millimeter waves) somehow it proves all other possibilities are somehow purest fantasy
Will you also abandon this futile effort as easily as you abandoned your previous efforts and resort to ramblings? We have to wait and see.
"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.
Huh, what are you smoking? I haven't changed one iota from my original position.
You said "No kill-switch". You are yet to back it up. Still waiting.
Oh right, you gave an absurd reason about "burden of proof" and "you don't need to prove a negative". It makes sense why you suffer from such a misconception after reading this:
BTW, you should tell your notion of not needing to prove a negative assertion to the mathematicians who worked for 350 years to prove Fermat's last theorum. They could have simply said "There is no solution for n>2 unless someone can prove it exists. Done". Its quite amazing how all this just goes over your head, though.
Lawfare? You do realise this is not a court-room right? This is a debate based on logic. But you are confusing "legal" and "logical". Hence you are erroneously attempting to apply legal doctrines such as "burden of proof in a trial" to this debate, and "presumption of innocence in a trial" to "assumption of truth for the negative assertion".
No, we are not in a courtroom. We are debating using logic. If you assert that you categorically know the truth, you back it up. Otherwise its "trust me bro".
As for your attempts to prove to a complete stranger on the Internet that you are intelligence because you were on a team writing proposals and because you won "admiration and approval" from some "government study manager" ?
Really? You actually took that bait? Okay, since you have put yourself in this position (and assuming even one word of anything you say is not from a fantasyland), tell me how being on a team writing proposal makes you intelligent? We used to task the grunt work of a proposal to the newest hires. At best it makes you competent enough to do the paperwork.
And admiration and approval? How does that have any correlation to intelligence? Usually "admiration" and "approval" is reserved for those who don't actually achieve much. Like a consolation prize.
But I can see why admiration and approval is so important for you.
I didn't really expect anything of substance from you from the beginning, and you have proven me right. Unless you can share your extensive research into the vaccines and how there is no possibility of a kill switch of any kind in it - this includes analysing the ingredients of all the various vaccine batches, and testing it under wide range of conditions, frequencies etc, and going through all bioweapon patents to rule out the applicability of each of those - you wont have anything intelligent to add to this already tedious and repetitive "I am admired and I got approved. I know things!!" session.
Typical response when someone produces credentials and track record: deny that such things are relevant to what one says. A perfect argument for those who have neither credentials nor track record.
Legalistic argument is a form of sophistry, and it is called "legalistic" because it often shows up in courtrooms. You are a natural.
But now you do make a lie. You really and truly admitted that your remark about kill switches was fantasy, and seemed rather proud of it. But you don't know logic as well as you imagine. The problem of proving a negative is real and not to be discounted. A "kill switch" for mRNA is purest fantasy, lacking even any physical basis for operation. (Microwaves and millimeter waves are at least millimeters long. The mRNA is a molecule. The longer waves would simply go around the molecules without exchanging energy. How's that for an objection? It's called physics.)
My remark (nice to see you finally use this word) is meant exactly, word to word, as I typed it and not an iota different. First you assumed it was a declaration. Now you are assuming its a fantasy. As always, both your assumptions are wrong. The reason why you keep making these mistakes is because you cannot differentiate between a "logical statement" and a "factual statement". You cannot differentiate between a piece of evidence and proof of crime.
And yet you keep trying to apply "burden of proof" from a courtroom to a logical debate on a Internet forum. Good to see you are acknowledging this now.
Its cute to see that you have now embarked on yet another attempt to prove something that is built on so many levels of fallacies. The most obvious ones that surely even you cannot fail to comprehend:
You assume these shots have just mRNA and nothing else
You assume that if you argue that one mode of kill switch is impossible (microwaves and millimeter waves) somehow it proves all other possibilities are somehow purest fantasy
Will you also abandon this futile effort as easily as you abandoned your previous efforts and resort to ramblings? We have to wait and see.