29-11-2010, 03:26 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 137
|
|
Are all trolls bad at math?
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:56 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 7:49 AM:
Steve Carroll wrote:
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!
LOL!
You
Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|