~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
MenGoingTOWin
[–]Three-Legged-Fox279 points280 points281 points 5 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
It blows my mind that this concept is now controversial.
[–]Belrick_NZ72 points73 points74 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Law students are striking over the governments lack of support for presumption of guilt
[–]DoubleSoul10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's absolutely depressingly sad
[–]MillennialDan72 points73 points74 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Adulthood was a lie.
[–]scorillo2737 points38 points39 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It’s not even recent or controversial. It comes from the Roman law adagio actori incumbit probatio. Even more for criminal law there is even a stronger one in dubio pro reo which translates into resonable doubt as a concept that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime. Not only the proof must be presented by the prosecution but it also must prove that beyond reasonable doubt that there was a crime committed and that the defendant committed it. Of course the defendant can prove his/hers innocence or that the crime was justified but that’s another discussion.
[+]imahsleep-21 points-20 points-19 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
Burden of proof is a law term, literally the obligation of a party in a trial (key word) to provide evidence. The problem here is Kavanaugh wasn’t on trial, this was closer to a job interview, one he should have failed if we are being honest. If multiple people told your potential employer you might be a creep, chances are you will not get the job whether they can prove it or not. Why? Because there are tons of candidates who are likely equally as qualified who likely haven’t been accused of this. Candidates who haven’t potentially lied or misled while under oath. Candidates who didn’t scream about some Clinton conspiracy (wtf did Clinton have to do with any of this) on live television. This confirmation was purely an attempt by the right to send a message, and it’s a message women aren’t going to receive well. The left clearly had an agenda and handled this very poorly, but the reality is the right could have easily just picked a new candidate. Now they are stuck with Kavanaugh forever, and risk other accusations and discoveries. If he’s squeaky clean time will tell, but he clearly misled the senate with respect to his heavy drinking so who knows.
[–]40AcresRaider23 points24 points25 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Most people actually do understand the distinction between the legal idea of a presumption of innocence compared with everyday interactions. But just because it is a legal standard, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be applied beyond the legal realm. We are seeing more and more cases of athletes, actors, and businessmen who are losing their careers and families over accusations with no evidence except an emotional accuser. Without a doubt, some of the accused are actually guilty but we need to support a system of people being judged on the merits of the actual facts, not on opinions. So maybe we need to change the % of victims who actually report, that way in the future, there will be credible evidence available. In terms of Kavanaugh, he was on the defacto 2nd highest court in the land for many years without incident, I didn't hear much of anything about him during his time there, weird. Additionally, any judgment and opinions of Kavanaugh are constrained in two critical ways. 1. His opinion is one of nine. 2. Any opinion he writes is not secret, it will be released to the public to be analyzed. Therefore, if Kavanaugh is some crazy wacko... The other justices can over-rule and additionally he could be impeached if he is caught doing anything shady.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]EvilPencil12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be able to retain his current position, but he did not conduct himself in a way that was deserving of an appointment to the highest court in the land.
His temperament as a SC judge has NOTHING to do with how he behaved on the stand with his entire life on trial. Let's put YOU on national TV, tell a bunch of LIES about you and see how you respond.
Edit: forgot to add death threats for your entire family too.
The GOP was "dick slapping" the Dems because the Dems were trying to dick slap due process.
[+]imahsleep-14 points-13 points-12 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
Well I’ve never been accused of assault but what I have going for me is I know I’ve never done anything that would cause accusations. Knowing that I’d be annoyed sure, maybe I’d even be a little snippy on the stand, but I know I wouldn’t lose my composure and call it a Clinton conspiracy cause my brain doesn’t work like that
Edit. To add on, I feel like you are missing the optics of how insane a claim that is. Probably because you buy into all the pizza gate stuff and all the other nonsense if I had to guess and that’s the problem. You all think these are ok claims to make and it isn’t. The clintons couldn’t give a fuck about Kavanaugh, they’d probably never even heard of him, and more so the clintons are no longer a political entity, no matter how much the right wants to scream about them. That was the single dumbest partisan claim I’ve ever seen come out of someone mouth aside from trump
[–]EvilPencil11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
IT DOESN'T MATTER if you know you haven't done anything that would "cause" accusations. CAN YOU PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE TO A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, 15, 20, 36 YEARS LATER, if someone comes out of the woodwork with some bullshit accusation??
And when did I say anything about the Clintons?????
[+]imahsleep-9 points-8 points-7 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I’m talking about Kavanaugh in the senate hearings you big baby lol
[–]EvilPencil7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Your lack of an answer to my question means you know that you can't (See what I just did there? I presumed!!). Thus the need for due process, which IS the presumption of innocence.
[–]imahsleep0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I dont think we are understanding each other. Im not saying you mentioned the clintons, Im saying Kavanaugh went off on how the whole thing is a clinton conspiracy. That is what i have a problem with. If you dont see that as a problem, your optics are fucked because it is an insane claim that he, nor anyone else can back up because the clinton's have nothing to do with any of this. They are no longer in politics, despite how much the right cries about them
[–]Itisforsexy10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The problem here is Kavanaugh wasn’t on trial, this was closer to a job interview, one he should have failed if we are being honest. If multiple people told your potential employer you might be a creep, chances are you will not get the job whether they can prove it or not. Why? Because there are tons of candidates who are likely equally as qualified who likely haven’t been accused of this.
If an employer is so retarded as to consider the word of spiteful women 36 years after the fact, without a shred of proof to support their claims, then that employer will soon be out of business. As they say, get woke go broke.
Candidates who haven’t potentially lied or misled while under oath
Kavanaugh bent the truth a little in his testimony on questions 100% unrelated to the accusations. The questions were meant to do one thing, besmirch his character in the eyes of religious morons who consider being sexually adventurous in high school and college as some grand sin.
Candidates who didn’t scream about some Clinton conspiracy (wtf did Clinton have to do with any of this) on live television.
Correct, he should have gone down the route of Soros.
This confirmation was purely an attempt by the right to send a message, and it’s a message women aren’t going to receive well.
Good, go cry in your panties. Your reign of terror and oppression over men might actually be coming to a close very soon. You overplayed your hand.
The left clearly had an agenda and handled this very poorly, but the reality is the right could have easily just picked a new candidate
And if the left had actually attacked Kavanaugh on what matters, his stances and judicial record, then I'd be on board. Kavanaugh has a terrible stance on the 4th and 5th amendments, and supports the Patriot act. If the left had gone after him on these issues, I would be entirely in support of barring him from the SC & getting a new candidate in. Judge Andrew Napolitano would have been far better.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Itisforsexy8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It’s actually impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you if you think there is a “reign of terror” against men.
Family court "system". There are so many other systemic examples I can list, but that one alone justifies the word "terror".
You just sound like some incel virgin
Not that this is an argument, but no.
I’m a man, and I have have never been oppressed or slandered for being a man.
Then you're lucky. An anecdotal experience is not data nor is it an argument.
The chances of you getting randomly accused when you have done nothing wrong are far less than the chances of a woman getting raped or a black person being unfairly profiled
I don't know if this is true, but assuming it is, I don't quite know what your point is? That men are targeted in real-life is far from simply false rape accusations. Most DV claims are false and women use this in divorce court (or even outside of it) to steal from men every day, as no proof is necessary. There isn't even a process. If a woman calls the cops and claims you beat her, there is nothing you can do. You'll be kicked out of your own home, jailed, she'll even have access to your bank account and car in some cases.
And FYI, the actual rape statistics are about 1.2 in 1,000 (in the USA). Extraordinarily low. And most often this is from people people the woman knew, seldom is it some stranger randomly deciding to rape a woman walking down the street.
You tell those people to get over it right?
No?
You tell the kids in schools to get over it, school shootings are unlikely right
I have no idea what you're even talking about.
[–]imahsleep0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I’m not sure how a shirtless pic of you flexing helps your case here but ok thanks I guess? I’m not talking about family court, what they do to dads in separations is a separate tragedy but certainly not terror. Also you literally gave a ridiculous rape statistic instead of the meaningful one that 1 and 5 women will be sexually assaulted in some way. And the last part is about all the other injustices, that while they are rare, are still occurring. Meanwhile the right just says well yeah but those don’t matter because cops are mostly good, or that the likelihood of your child getting shot in school is incredibly small. But you sure as shit seem to care about the 0.00001% chance you get wrongly accused of assault. It’s called hypocrisy . I’m not going to say you are guilty of it for sure, but this sub is really giving off that vibe. I hope you care about all the other unjust things done to women by men, children by the Catholic Church, blacks by racist cops etc, and not just this one issue that maybe could effect you, equally ramblings here, I’m on a mobile so it’s a little difficult. My point is you all are crying about something that is such a small, nearly nonexistent issue, but when other rare issues are brought up, you brush them off.
[–]Itisforsexy2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I’m not sure how a shirtless pic of you flexing helps your case here but ok thanks I guess?
It debunks your non-argument. I am not an incel, I could get plenty of women if I wanted to. But this social environment and government structure precludes the logical from doing so.
I’m not talking about family court, what they do to dads in separations is a separate tragedy but certainly not terror
It isn't a tragedy. Tragedy removes agency from the individuals concocting the horror inflicted upon fathers across the world. It is terror.
Also you literally gave a ridiculous rape statistic instead of the meaningful one that 1 and 5 women will be sexually assaulted in some way
It isn't meaningless, it's the official statistic from the bureau of justice.
or that the likelihood of your child getting shot in school is incredibly small
It is infinitesimally small, yes. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter, just like when a rape occurs, even if it's infrequent, it does matter. So I'm not sure what your point is.
But you sure as shit seem to care about the 0.00001% chance you get wrongly accused of assault
The rate of false rape charges is between 2% to 40+%. It is a serious probability. Moreover, there is a defense against actual rape, women can carry a weapon to protect themselves in most situations. If you're accused of rape though, you're done. There's no protection against the gynocentric mob & government.
I hope you care about all the other unjust things done to women by men, children by the Catholic Church, blacks by racist cops etc, and not just this one issue that maybe could effect you, equally ramblings here, I’m on a mobile so it’s a little difficult.
I care about all acts that violate the non-aggression principle, made against any sentient being. I don't care what gender or color your skin is. I'm not sure why you think I would, just because I think men are being legally oppressed in society.
My point is you all are crying about something that is such a small, nearly nonexistent issue, but when other rare issues are brought up, you brush them off.
You cannot be serious. Small issue? Please, inform yourself.
Being a man in society is the worst hand you can be dealt. I don't say this to claim a victim card to power, the idea of that disgusts that. I say it so maybe people will be made aware and put an end to it, because all of these injustices are created by the government at the whimsy of emotional women & their white knight army.
[–]PorkBomber2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The chances of you getting randomly accused when you have done nothing wrong are far less than the chances of a woman getting raped
No, its actually the other way around. The chances of getting falsely accused (both rape and DV) are far greater than a woman getting raped. The real rapes are far rare than feminists would have you believe. Hell, more men and boys actually get raped than women if you count the prison rapes. If you look at any no-bullshit statistics, they list false accusations as anywhere between 50-90% of total accusations. Then, there are steps you can take to prevent being raped, there are no steps you can take to prevent getting falsely accused.
If you compare two situations qualitatively, getting falsely accused is far worse than actually getting raped. If you get raped, you suffer trauma and that is it. If you get falsely accused, you suffer trauma, you lose your career, you lose your family and friends, you lose your reputation, you lose your freedom, in a nutshell your entire life gets ruined. Also, the woman who is a victim of rape is treated like some sort of celebrity or heroine nowadays, whereas people spit on the face of falsely accused man. Just look at all those people and media calling Dr. Christine Fraud 'brave', hell some retarded chick on twitter even went on to call her more brave than any US marine.
[–]RubixCubeDonut3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Burden of proof is a law term
No, it's a basic philosophical concept, you ignorant fuck.
[–]40AcresRaider0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Still waiting on new discoveries and for women's rights to be destroyed... Looks like my prediction of how Kavanaugh would use his power is so far correct. He even sided with the "liberal" justices on a case about funding for planned parenthood. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-plannedparenthood/u-s-top-court-kavanaugh-spurn-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-idUSKBN1O91PN
Any sources of him being a creep yet or?
[–]Ohboohoolittlegirl122 points123 points124 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's amazing how this concept, which is the basis of our justice system, means nothing anymore on schools, universities and workplaces, all cause SJW's will go ham on you if you don't take immediate action. This is forced by activism and entitlement.
[–]TristanIsSpiffy14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don’t mention ham around SJWs. They’ll either eat it or kill you for eating it
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it's why i hate identity politics. have minorities and women got the shaft in some social areas of society. sure. minorities more than women. but justice is supposed to be blind so the eventual conclusion must be based on facts/evidence. but with identity politics its simply so easy to say, well, he's black, she's a woman, so yeah, you can't say anything against them because the overall history of that subgroup trumps the individual facts on this case. its such retarded logic.
[–]Iperovic63 points64 points65 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
You would think this was common sense.
[–]randarrow66 points67 points68 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
NPCs don't function like that.
[–]Belrick_NZ15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Love this meme
[–]randarrow8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Creeped me the fuck out at first, but I'm coming around. It just works....
[–]Belrick_NZ21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
If talking.whitemale ==true Then
RunRee()
RunRacistSlur()
RunMisogynistSlur()
End if
[–]McUserton11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That's proprietary NPC source code and protected by an NDA. Where did you get it?
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]nmagod3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
prompts for a download instead of opening in a new tab
what the fuck, man
[–]MenGoingTOWin[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Don't use internet exploder.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
if (whiteMale.isTalking()) { ree() racistSlur() misogynistSlur() }
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
[–]Belrick_NZ1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Lol yeah i was trolling vb. Rip vb
I must learn those reddit code tags
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Rip vb
Lol! Even vb .net looks like crap compared to every other language I can think of.
[–]Belrick_NZ0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It does.
I look after a 10yo vb6 app that only compiles properly with vs2008 which makes it really horrible to debug and intellisense makes me sigh.
To make it even work i have to use fiddler proxy server to intercept its https packets and encrypt them in tls 1.1 since vb only supports tls1.0
Having said that. I do love what vba brings to ms office
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I look after a 10yo vb6 app that only compiles properly with vs2008
That sounds pretty painful lol. Currently I'm using typescript (for Angular) and jetbrains webstorm so I'm pretty coddled lol.
i have to use fiddler proxy server to intercept its https packets and encrypt them in tls 1.1 since vb only supports tls1.
Lol. Clever trick. Fiddler is handy.
I do love what vba brings to ms office
Never got into it as never had to use ms office all that much beyond the basics. But yeah, useful.
[–]Griever11425 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Woah there edgelord, next thing you are gonna tell me is that people are guilty until proven innocent under the law?
[–]johntheother25 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is increasingly no longer the case in the courtroom.
[–]imthewiseguy29 points30 points31 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
“It WaS a JoB iNtErViEw”
Yeah, testifying in front of the judiciary committee of the senate (under penalty of perjury) because you got accused of rape is “just a job interview”
[–]butters0911 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Tbf, dude bombed that judiciary hearing like it was Hiroshima in 1945
[–]Chill-BL23 points24 points25 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
If this concept was universal since beginning of time, then religion wouldn't have existed in the first place. Just like any theory that claims anything outside of perceivable existence. (tarot cards, voodoo doodoo and any other "mystical" claim in history)
[–]Vlad_the_imp_hailer0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Like “dark matter”?
[–]Chill-BL14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If I remember correctly, Dark matter is inferred. So whilst we don't know exactly what dark matter is. We have perceived some of its effects and is therefore not something outside of reality.
It's a very fine line where you are starting to talk about things that go beyond experience (which is the whole meta-physics debate in the first place)
[–]Profligate-Prophet1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Its true and dark matter is a perfect example. Becacuase dark matter really means there is something out there but we dont know what it is. How ever here is all this evidence that there is all these things strange reactions.
It would be like we I didnt see the robbery but I have footage of the man running in with a gun and comming back out with a sack of money. Strangely that would not mean enough evidence in the scientific field, well the hard sciences any way, but is pretty damning in the court if law.
[–]Chill-BL7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But isn't it the case with the robbery that an amount of cash was somewhere, and now it's not? wouldn't that be the evidence that at least the money is moved from it's original location?
How and by what means are now debate-able, but other than that it happened.
[–]bluescape0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
From my understanding, the use of "dark matter" is a bit of scientific place holder. We can observe some effects that don't line up with current observable inputs so we're basically going "well SOMETHING" is effecting this, ergo "dark matter".
[–]le_flapjack14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
This was never common sense. Christians have been avoiding this pill for millennia.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I dont follow
[–]le_flapjack1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
“God exists. You can’t prove he doesn’t.” The burden of proof is on Christians to prove he exists because they are making the claim, not everyone else.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
oh ya
[–]Senip6910 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
“I saw a UFO!”...... do you have proof? Photo, video? No? Then you’re lying or mistaken
“A man assaulted me over 30 years ago”...... oh shit no proof needed
[–]robowriter6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
With women, girls, men raised as women, boys without Dads, gimps and cucks, and the dickless it's about feels not logic.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]glad2besad17 points18 points19 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Atheists don’t even need to say “God doesn’t exist”. If someone says “God exists”, they need to prove it otherwise it’s invalid. Logic does the work.
You can’t just go around saying random shit that’s impossible to prove or disprove, THAT is bullshit.
That’s like saying Michael Jackson is still alive, and you are the one who has to prove me wrong.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Thezanlynxer4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
What if I say “I don’t believe god exists”? I’m not going to try to argue that god doesn’t exist, because there’s no proof.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Thezanlynxer1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
The thing is that I don’t think a deity doesn’t exist. I just don’t actively believe one does.
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]MenGoingTOWin[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
people will say a negative claim needs to be proven.
I disagree. You come from an understanding. You don't just change that understanding on a whim, you require evidence. This is internal process. Why should external process be any different?
I do understand some fools are so easily manipulated that they have removed their internal validation process.
[–]Hirudin5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
small exception:
If someone makes the claim that "something doesn't exist" or "something never happens" it's unreasonable to ask them to back up the claim, because that would be asking them to prove a negative.
In that particular case, someone challenging the claim is the one obligated to find an example disproving the claim.
[–]Belrick_NZ8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
Rape culture is a myth. (Your claim that it does exist) Prove me wrong.
God doesnt exist. (Your claim that it does exist) Prove me wrong.
They are making the mistake of moving the demand for evidence to those rejecting their claims
[–]Hirudin2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
If I say that rape culture is a myth (a negative claim) then it would be up to the person who wants to refute this claim to prove its existence, by at least providing an example of it.
You are making the mistake of moving the demand for evidence to those rejecting your claims
If the claim is that of a negative, then it is the responsibility of the person rejecting the claim to provide evidence disproving it, though it would also be the responsibility of the person establishing the claim for having a reasonable threshold of proof that would refute their negative claim.
If I were making a positive claim i.e. "Rape culture exists" then it would be my responsibility to back up my claim, and not the responsibility of someone disputing it.
[–]Belrick_NZ1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Negative claim?
Rejection based on lack of evidence isn't a claim. It is simply a logical decision.
No one needs to look for evidence to reject god , rape culture or unicorns. Those are rejected automatically by lack of presented evidence.
[–]Hirudin1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
In some instances (mathematics) the burden of proof for a negative claim still remains with the claimant, and it also requires that there be some agreed-upon threshold of truth to disprove the negative claim, otherwise it's considered an "argument from ignorance."
[–]WikiTextBot1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Burden of proof (philosophy)
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
[–]bluescape1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The default position is that "something doesn't exist". The default position is "something hasn't happened". The claims that something does exist, or something has happened are the things that need to be proven. See: Russell's Teapot
[–]Hirudin0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I agree.
Other variations include the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
[–]bluescape0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
My misunderstanding then, I guess rather than "prove to me that God exists" you're saying that "I have absolute proof that God does not exist", would be the claim for a negative that now needs evidence.
[–]Hirudin0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well no one could ever have absolute proof of a negative outside of mathematics or something like that. Of course in that case they actually do need proof for the negative.
"I have absolute proof that God does not exist", would be the claim for a negative that now needs evidence.
correct. Saying "God does not exist" is different than saying "God cannot exist"
[–]jaycee96 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We should have never given them the vote.
[–]Religion_N_Polyticks1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You guys are late to the game.
Paul Newman did a movie about this 35 years ago.
https://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi3853779225
[–]LovesGettingRandomPm0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What if you can't prove it but you're putting the claim out there in the event that someone else is able to prove it so we can push both of our understanding.
Is it weird for me to go into a debate expecting the other party to want to find the truth instead of trying to fuel one of our egos?
It's how I used to approach it, then I realized that people generally don't change their positions, so I was arguing more for the fun of arguing, or for unconvinced third parties. Now I'm kind of jaded so I'll admit I generally jump the gun insofar as just writing other people off as idiots and then treating them as such. I will say that people CAN be convinced, but only seemingly in one on one, face to face conversations. Doing it over the internet outside of places like r/changemyview is basically just an exercise in both parties spinning their wheels.
[–]Cherubin00 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The logic of atheism is the same of global warming denier. There is never enough evidence to convince anyone of them.
[–]ultimate_weapxn9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Lol yea the overwhelming evidence of god vs the undeniable evidnce of climate cycles
[–]Cherubin04 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
For deniers there is no evidence of <insert whatever you want>.
[–]imahsleep5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Idk if I am understanding this correctly. Global warming has scientists studying climate change, creating models to back up their theories. Is there a scientist who made a model to show god exists? Or is there just some old book people wrote back when they couldn’t actually explain science, so they claimed things were miracles.
[–]Anders_A0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When was this common sense? A lot of people have been arguing like this for a long time.
[–]sohan89980 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The one who makes the claim (positive or negative) has to provide evidence. The validity of the claims are determined by the evidence that backs them.
[–]forthefaps0010 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Unless you are religious. Then facts don't matter only faith.
[–]HansTheIV0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's no due process for kavanaugh though (which is what I assume this post is referring to). It's essentially a job interview. Not a lawsuit.
[–]butters0910 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Tell that to the Christian zealots out there
Lmao tell that to every religion created in the past 3000 years
[–]BattleBoi0406-1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Damn this is such a simple pill.
[–]MenGoingTOWin[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You'd think. But in the days of #MeToo?
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Three-Legged-Fox279 points280 points281 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ72 points73 points74 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DoubleSoul10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MillennialDan72 points73 points74 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]scorillo2737 points38 points39 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]imahsleep-21 points-20 points-19 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]40AcresRaider23 points24 points25 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]EvilPencil12 points13 points14 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]imahsleep-14 points-13 points-12 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPencil11 points12 points13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]imahsleep-9 points-8 points-7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]EvilPencil7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]imahsleep0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Itisforsexy10 points11 points12 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]Itisforsexy8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]imahsleep0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Itisforsexy2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PorkBomber2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RubixCubeDonut3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]40AcresRaider0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ohboohoolittlegirl122 points123 points124 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TristanIsSpiffy14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Iperovic63 points64 points65 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]randarrow66 points67 points68 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ15 points16 points17 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]randarrow8 points9 points10 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ21 points22 points23 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]McUserton11 points12 points13 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]nmagod3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]MenGoingTOWin[S] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Griever11425 points26 points27 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]johntheother25 points26 points27 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]imthewiseguy29 points30 points31 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]butters0911 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chill-BL23 points24 points25 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vlad_the_imp_hailer0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chill-BL14 points15 points16 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Profligate-Prophet1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Chill-BL7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluescape0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]le_flapjack14 points15 points16 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]le_flapjack1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senip6910 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]robowriter6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (24 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]glad2besad17 points18 points19 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (20 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Thezanlynxer4 points5 points6 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (18 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Thezanlynxer1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]MenGoingTOWin[S] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin5 points6 points7 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ8 points9 points10 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Belrick_NZ1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluescape1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]bluescape0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hirudin0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jaycee96 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Religion_N_Polyticks1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LovesGettingRandomPm0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bluescape0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cherubin00 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ultimate_weapxn9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Cherubin04 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]imahsleep5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Anders_A0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sohan89980 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]forthefaps0010 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HansTheIV0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]butters0910 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]butters0910 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BattleBoi0406-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MenGoingTOWin[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link