On Nov 26, 9:15*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 8:31 PM:









Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation

Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.


In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
the same way a modern court does: *A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, *having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of absolute
proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
works just fine in this context. Math need not apply. You're now
trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as stupid
as you need them to be

In a court there is almost never proof...

In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
YET?

LOL!