stevegmu
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Hey, didja all catch the cool, intelligently used phrase "burden of proof" that ScaryZ just used? That shows he at least reads epistemological works, unlike some people here, hloupý debil.
And an important concept it is, too, this burden of proof. this rule states that the burden of proof always rests upon the party making a positive ascertation, such as "nicotine causes dependency". This means the one making this claim must provide absolutely undeniable proof of his claim, or shut up. To keep arguing is intellectually dishonest and debate suicide. Now, the other side of this argument is the acceptance of what is called the "universal negative" or a simple "no, it doesn't. Where's the proof?" This side of the argument does not require any proof at all, as logically, no one can ever prove a negative.
Now, there exists a very shitty tactic, used by dishonest scumbags when they realize they've lost the debate, called "shifting the burden of proof" This is used when the loser's bruised ego or political ideology (like anti-vaping), will not allow him to admit defeat, and is more important to him than honesty. How this is done is very simple, and I'm certain you have all seen it a thousand times; it's when someone says "Well, can you prove it doesn't?" The universally correct answer to this question is always: "Of course not. Nobody can prove a negative. That's impossible. The negative is to be accepted until the other side has 100% convincing proof." It really is that simple, folks. Any time anyone asks for proof when you are stating the negative, It's a pretty safe bet that that person cannot be trusted. Na tebe dívá , Steve.
Perhaps you should use your mind to get over that food addiction. Good luck and don't forget the Flavor-aid...