Just to be sure, the burden of proof lies on THEM, not US, right? (open question)

Solstus22 · 2017-02-25T00:58:05+00:00

No need to even debate it, unless you are doing so for fun. You can point out that fire burns but it is upon each individual not to stick their hand in the fire.

Rhodesius · 2017-02-25T01:19:15+00:00

From what I've learned in philosophy class the burden of proof lies on us since we came up with the idea of NAWALT and AWALT. So really we have to prove both. If you said "all women are the same!" and someone else claimed they weren't then the burden of proof would lie on them since they claimed women are different. But at the same time you would have to prove that all women are the same.

801735 · 2017-02-25T01:22:20+00:00

It would be nice if it was... programmable. But it's not, because there's so much more than just logic at it, really. Not only ROI, there's also, well other generic and individual kinds of expectations. Everybody talks and asks and answers and answers about it. The elephant is so huge I'm not even sure if it's in the room or the room in it, lately. =]

But, rest assured, AWALT. Given time and options, there is no 'n', Spooneo, there is no 'n'. No proof needed. What do >you< >want<? (note to self: Stop writing that.)

csehszlovakze · 2017-02-25T02:59:51+00:00

The burden of proof depends upon whom makes the claim and the type of claim.

NAWALT is actually an easier claim to prove because all they have to do is find a single woman that is not like our claim. AWALT is a universal claim and therefore not practically proven because we can't census all women on the planet. Both NAWALT and AWALT have a burden of proof because they are making a claim. The one without a burden of proof is the one in the naive position. The mistake is thinking that if their are two combatants that one must hold the burden of proof while the other does not. If anything, I'd say NAWALT is the more natural position as far as logic and therefore holding less a burden of proof, by comparison.

So, it isn't a useful debate and thinking that literally AWALT is not a useful way of thinking. It is a heuristic and a probability judgement to use in making decisions (all guns are loaded, or "most are like this so I should assume all are, especially since they share evolutionary past"). It is not a matter of stating objective truth.

Objective truth is too high a bar when dealing with anything human, so I'd adjust my thinking.

exit-stage-right2 · 2017-02-25T04:35:38+00:00

Nothing needs to be proven. It's perception formed from experiences.

Mini_Bot · 2017-02-25T04:44:16+00:00

AWALT is a falsifiable hypothesis. You can easily prove it wrong by finding an NAWALT. NAWALT isn't a falsifiable hypothesis because it says you'll find a good woman out there if you look hard enough, AKA you'll find 1 as the amount of time approaches infinity.

Technically, you can never prove AWALT because no one has infinite time to sample every women. It's a generalization that's only true until a NAWALT is found. If you're talking about any scientific theory, they work the same way. The theory is true until some evidence that the theory can't explain appears. You can't prove the theory of evolution is 100% true all the time because you haven't witness every step of evolution. But you can conclude that it's true because the theory explains all the evidence you have, and you can falsify it by acquiring evidence that the theory can't explain.

It's a bit different for theories about people though because there are so many factors that contribute to what someone becomes. It's hard to pinpoint a 100% true theory, so we have to work in trends. But if we're working with trends, I don't think we have any trend data to conclude AWALT.

csehszlovakze · 2017-02-25T07:28:34+00:00

Like the never ending debate between the existence of God or if which religion is the RIGHT religion

that's actually a draw because theists can't prove the existence of a god/gods, while atheists can't disprove it either... and since both camps are packed full with vagina worshipping cucks it doesn't even matter from a MGTOW standpoint.

(I'm irreligious btw but refuse to call myself an atheist because of their arrogant behaviour.)

I-am-the-lul · 2017-02-25T09:24:06+00:00

Not only is it true that Enough Women Are Like That, you can never be sure that any "NAWALTs" you meet are the real deal, so as a MGTOW just assume AWALT.

huckleberryferry · 2017-02-25T18:51:44+00:00

You do not really need to prove anything, because it's pointless anyway. A thing about generalisations is that, it's for simplicity and convenience—kind of a survival mechanism or technique. Say, you get chased by a lion whenever you tread a certain pathway; in this scenario, the wisest decision to make is to never take that path again—and this will be rationalized with the reasoning that you've always been chased by a lion whenever you took that path and therefore you'll always be chased by a lion whenever you take that path (assumption). Although it isn't really certain that you will always be chased by a lion but by using that seemingly flawed premise, you avoid the possibility overall. If someone is so stubborn as to demand for a proof for your extraordinary claim, it's not dependent on you or in fact not your responsibility to verify your claim. The case of proof-giving is not always necessary in every situation, such as a potentially or actually dangerous situation. The person who demands a proof for AWALT has to falsify your claim with a NAWALT else it's not your responsibility at all to provide any proof because you're just fine by your claim (in fact thriving well with it) unless you're only interested in proselytizing your belief. There always have to be a point and a substance-yielding end to an argument—any lack thereof renders the pointlessness of the argument. I for one, I live with the assumption that EVERY woman I meet on my way is already in a relationship, and this is to ward me off any attempt to ask any woman out or even approach her. I don't need to prove my belief to ANYONE to feel validated; it's just to make my life simple and convenient so that I don't have to ask every woman I meet to verify/ disprove my belief.

Title	Just to be sure, the burden of proof lies on THEM, not US, right? (open question)
Author	Solstus22
Upvotes	8
Comments	23
Date	February 25, 2017 12:55 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/5w1daj/just_to_be_sure_the_burden_of_proof_lies_on_them/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/just-to-be-sure-the-burden-of-proof-lies-on-them.605446 https://theredarchive.com/post/605446

Comments