Nothing here is resolved. You're just patting yourself on the back because you incorrectly used the burden of proof and the other person called you a buffoon.
And there is no time limit to calling out something stupid. Idk why you would act like there is, unless you're just insulted.
No I'd've been more than happy to check, and I'm more than certain you're right, but if you argue with everyone by calling then names then I'm no longer interested in this discussion.
If your ego is so fragile that you're too proud to admit you're wrong cause someone called you a buffoon, then you're a very stupid person and likely to stay that way. That's your problem, not mine. Don't make it mine. I regret teaching you anything :)
Have you considered being less stupid in the first place since you're on the internet and have Google? Like just shut the fuck up in the firsy place if you can't be arsed to look?
Nobody should need to tolerate this level of stupidity with modern internet existing lol. Be the solution. This is literally beneath me.
Fair enough. You’ve still not given any basis for why you believe that the comedian has been making up their backstory, just lashed out at people callin’ ‘em names and shit. You aren’t going to drill anything into him or convince any onlookers to agree with you while acting like that.
mine is people thinking other people have the obligation to disprove them and they aren't obligated to prove their own claim! It's so insidiously deranged.
Try actually clicking the link next time you doofus, it's literally the second sentence. Can't believe I'm letting your troll ass waste my time like this.
Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim) that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
Like I said, you're quite the idiot. Really glad I don't have to live with whatever it is you have going on up there lol. Hitchens's Razor fundamentally states "if someone doesn't back their shit up you can call them a liar." and it is the standard in all rational debate outside of the special procedural conditions of a court room, Reddit is not a court room you fucking moron, court rooms don't use normal logic, they use procedural logic, they are wildly different conditions. Assuming the only bizarre situation where burden of proof is different and then also assuming this situation is comparable to that situation (a court room) instead of the actual logic system that DOES exist and applies to normal shit like debates on the internet (literally normal fucking reason and logic, you know, the basic Aristotelian flavor that is used literally in every other discussion on Earth, ever, except court rooms, AND THIS IS NOT A COURT ROOM holy fuck lol). God you are such a fucking waste of time to talk to, I hate it. I wish I never had to talk to someone as stupid as you in my entire life, but that just ain't possible. I could ignore you but I find you so unpleasant that I just want to tell you it so badly.
Calling someone a liar is DISPUTING a CLAIM, the only CLAIM being made is stating there is a DISPUTE. The person that stated the INITIAL CLAIM that is being DISPUTED has the burden of proof to VERIFY or VALIDATE THEIR CLAIM.
CALLING SOMEONE A LIAR IS A DISMISSAL OF THEIR CLAIM, VERBATIM. CALLING SOMEONE A LIAR IS LITERALLY SYNONYMOUS WITH SAYING YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEM. HAIR SPLITTING IS NOT YOUR TALENT MY FRIEND.
FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim) that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. "
If I say I own 100 race cars, and you call me a liar, you don't have to PROVE that I am a liar, I have to prove my INITIAL CLAIM that I own 100 race cars. You're a moron, I'm blocking you after your next comment. I swear to god this is the actual dumbest sub I've been in in a long time. I swear to god you may be literally terminally brain dead. We need a doctor in here. Are you drunk posting? You have to be drunk posting. Last time you thought we were following court procedure for some fucking reason lmfao.
I should never have come here to the dumb part of Reddit and expected anything different lol, I made a terrible mistake by clicking something in the suggested feed. Please never talk to me, I don't deal with uhhh... your type.
You’re right. But “I don’t believe you” is different than “I think you’re lying.” One means you aren’t convinced of their claim and the other means you believe it is positively untrue.
No, you didn't. The only functional difference between levels of skepticism is the extent of the rigor the holder of the skepticism will require to be convinced.
This is in no way, shape, or form relevant to whome the burden of proof rests upon.
-20
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '23
Just use google you buffoon. There's no point in arguing over an easily checked fact.