Guess we can dismiss your post then as you offered no evidence to support it.
9/11
- Thread starter peteyr
- Start date
- Status
Guess we can dismiss your post then as you offered no evidence to support it.
I don't have the burden of proof fool.
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
And you've made a derivation quote there from the Latin Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur - I am guessing you got it from Hitch. However, you've made an assertion there so according to that the burden of proof is on you to support it. I am intrigued whether you can. Shouldn't be too hard tbh.
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
And you've made a derivation quote there from the Latin Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur - I am guessing you got it from Hitch. However, you've made an assertion there so according to that the burden of proof is on you to support it. I am intrigued whether you can. Shouldn't be too hard tbh.
I made no assertion you fool. Read the posts. Where was my assertion. This is not the first time I've had to waste valuable minutes of my life on you. Stop talking utter crap. I made no assertion. The burden of proof is not mine. But I'm wasting my time telling you that aren't I ? You're just going to troll me like normal. Pathetic.
assertion
əˈsəːʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
Which I guess is a bit like the following:
So I take it you didn't post that above then.
It seems you can't argue why that assertion should not be held to it's own criteria. Moreover, there is evidence and a historical precedent that the USA has done an identical thing before.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,632
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I really don't understand why some people don't want Al Qaeda to have this famous 'victory' so make ridiculous crap up.
I don't have a burden of proof as I've made no claims regarding this subject. I'm really sorry that you don't understand the rules of logical debate, but that's your problem and not mine.
Well then educate me. In your own words can you please exclaim why that assertion you made does not have to fulfil its own criteria. Do us all a favour - bequeath your extensive knowledge and explain why. I know why I think it doesn't I am genuinely interested if just for once you can actually back something up.
[FnG]magnolia;26846037 said:
He probably is. Although I don't agree with him. There are people on this forum who HATE other members and troll them. That's why we have an Ignore Member option. I'm about to add my second.
Last edited:
If you don't understand the burden of proof, why should I help you ? I don't even like you. Your posts are always anti epistemic and when I'm involved all you do is troll me. I'm not helping you at all m8y.
Well I guess there is the argument that there is a historical precedent of the USA ignoring other nations and their own agencies eg Pearl Harbour and USS Panay and then the First Gulf War and therefore whilst it may seem daft the actual notion that the intelligence services did have some knowledge of the attacks is not that far-fetched.
I'll take that as a "I can't then" and leave it there. Have fun.
This link is not for Xordiblahh, it's for anyone else who is interested in the process of intelligent debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 1,024
- Location
- N.I
Ron Paul is the only American politician who has for decades warned of the consequences of Americas actions. If you have followed his career, as I have, you would have seen how he was unfairly omitted from all political coverage during the run up to the last election. He is the biggest threat to the establishment in America, speaks the most sense, and is ridiculed by everyone in the press. In my opinion, he was the last chance America had at correcting decades of Corrupt government.
- Status