Originally posted by focus4chumps
dadudemon, Tom Owen was the only audio expert who claimed that zimmerman said "punks". the burden of proof is on you to provide another expert who concurred.
Why is there a burden of proof, period, for me to do anything?
What claims on facts have I made that requires me to prove anything? Hmmm? 😉
The burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified* audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment. Until then, you'll kindly have to suck it.
*It can't be someone like me who has only had undergrad exposure for a single class. It must be a published scientist that has actually be used as an expert opinion in a real legal case. So do not try and pull a fast one like you usually do. 🙂
And the "decided" upon description is "unintelligible", currently. What now?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That does nothing at all to prove your point.Are you drunk, again?
Go back through the conversation and posts. You'll see what I mean.
no other expert has concurred with his opinion. we agree so far?
if not, then the burden of proof is on you to give me another name.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified* audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment. Until then, you'll kindly have to suck it.
wrong . its up to YOU to provide the concurring statement of another expert. thats how this works. all the cheerleaders in the world can't alter that reality, friend. also, why are you angry?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
only one expert agreed/came up with the "punks" theoryno other expert has concurred with his opinion. we agree so far?
No, we do not agree. Because we do not know the entire set of legitmate experts that reviewed the audio.
I only brought up one, nor more, no less, has proposed the "punks" quote. Going above that point of mine is illogical. Going less than that point is also illogical.
If you want to contradict that expert, the burden of evidence (not proof) is on you.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
if not, then the burden of proof is on you to give me another name.
Why?
Why do I need to provide more than one name?
Why don't you need to provide a contradiction?
That is what you are doing, correct? You disagree with the opinion of a forensic expert, correct?
So get to proving.
I'll wait.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
wrong . its up to YOU to provide the concurring statement of another expert. thats how this works. all the cheerleaders in the world can't alter that reality, friend. also, why are you angry?
1. Why do I need to bring up more than one expert? You do know that that is not how it works in a court of law, right? You only need one expert witness to make a point. The burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment. Until then, you'll kindly have to suck it.
2. I accuse you of being drunk again and you ask me if I am angry? I was going to say "that's hilarious" but it really isn't. It is sad, man. You can do better than that.
3. When you have sobered up (I hear that you really are drunk), come back and talk. When you read your posts tomorrow and realize how silly your points were, you'll faceplam.
the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim, not the one who denies of the claim.
reversal of this is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists
"prove that 911 was not an inside job"
many religious folks
"prove that god does not exist"
and...you
"The burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified* audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment."
in other words "prove that nobody concurred". well fine. just as soon as you can provide proof of a religious expert denying the theory that god is actually...a carrot. i want to see proof in the form of an expert's statement. for example "god is in no way, shape or form; a carrot." (insert name of religious scholar)
also, calm down with the strawman bashing and blatant trolling. it doesnt become you ❌
Originally posted by focus4chumps
the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the claim, not the one who denies of the claim.
That's incorrect. You must have confused this for a philosopy discussion.
In a court of law, if you refute the expert of opinion of a forensic specialist, you must provide an alternative explanation in addition to why the expert of opinion of the one you disagree with is wrong.
If you are the defense attorney or the prosecutor, you cannot simply say, "I disagree with your expert witness. AHA! I gotcha!"
You must back up your disagreement with real forensic science. Disagreeing is not the only thing you can do.
Additionally, I provided "my" proof, already. So where's the problem, again? 😆
I guess this is where you have gone awry from the beginning.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
reversal of this is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists
"prove that 911 was not an inside job"
Nice strawman.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
many religious folks
"prove that god does not exist"
Again, nice strawman.
I bet the next thing you reply with is another strawman...
Originally posted by focus4chumps
"The burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified* audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment."
Sure enough...
Nice strawman.
Wow. You have done nothing to actually represent my argument.
I have already submitted you proof. Positive proof. It is not a negative asseration, it is a positive assertion. If you want to contradict it, you must provide an alternative assertion. This is not a negative assertion, as you claimed with your triple strawman attempt. This is a position which is NOT the "punks" position which would, by consequence, contradict the "punks" claim.
You do know a contradiction does not have to be a polar opposite, right?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
in other words "prove that nobody concurred". well fine. just as soon as you can provide proof of a religious expert denying the theory that god is actually...a carrot. i want to see proof in the form of an expert's statement. for example "god is in no way, shape or form; a carrot." (insert name of religious scholar)
Nice strawman.
But the burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment. By the way, since you have a problem understanding what "contradict" means in this statement, a contradiction to Owen's assessment would be a conclusion being anything positive other than "punks".
Reeeeadddddyyy.....GO!
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's incorrect. You must have confused this for a philosopy discussion.In a court of law, if you refute the expert of opinion of a forensic specialist, you must provide an alternative explanation in addition to why the expert of opinion of the one you disagree with is wrong.
in COURT and as a prosecutor or attorney, i would have to find my own expert to contradict the claim. correct. however a debate falls under philosophical discussion. instead of calling in experts, we are referencing already existing internet sources...unless you actually expect me to start writing letters to various audio experts asking their professional opinions? really?
well i can assure you that their time is not free. tell you what. wire me some cash and i'll make it happen.
you are using clown tactics, dadudemon. shifting the rule of burden of proof from debate to judicial procedure. is that where we reach out impasse and you start dancing and juggling?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
"The burden of proof is for you to provide an equally qualified* audio forensics expert to contradict Owen's assessment."in other words "prove that nobody concurred".
No that's not what he's asking. I'm not sure how you got that interpretation. He's asking you to prove that there was disagreement (among experts). That's a positive request and entirely valid.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nice strawman.
Er, you realize that not only was that a quote from you but you repeated the same statement at the end of the argument, right? His comparison to the other two is ridiculous but strawman is definately not the fallacy you're looking for. Red herring, maybe.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No that's not what he's asking. I'm not sure how you got that interpretation. He's asking you to prove that there was disagreement (among experts). That's a positive request and entirely valid.
i never claimed that there was a disagreement. i claimed that internet sources provide no other experts who agree. nice try though. 🙂
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i never claimed that there was a disagreement. i claimed that internet sources provide no other experts who agree.
What? 😕
If there's no one dissenting (as you seem to imply) and no one concurring then, at best, you can say a proper devil's advocate is needed before you are personally willing to make a judgement. You can't use that as evidence that he should be taken any less seriously.
I just want to say my two cents
No one has the right to say your a dangerous person because you are wearing a hoodie!!! People have been wearing hoods since early on, no one has the right to say your dangerous just because your dressed a certain way that doesnt fit their idea of normal. They forgot to say that it was also raining that night, so that explains the hoodie...
quick rewind since the context is long gone. post which started it all:
Originally posted by dadudemon
The same expert who said it was "punks" is also the same expert that determined, with high certainty, that the one yelling for help wasn't Zimmerman.So which one do you want?
false dilemma aside, ddm made the claim that this one expert was the sole opinion to be taken at face value, and thus that i could not 'have my cake and eat it too' so to speak.
i returned fire by stating the fact that several experts have studied the scream in question and all agree that it was likely martin, yet only mr. owen came up with the 'punks' theory. thus it was NOT commonly accepted among said experts.
would you suggest that unless i can find quotes to the contrary, it is to be assumed that they all concur by default?
"play down expert commentary"?
maybe you should be more careful about attempting to assign nonexistent statements and motives onto me. isnt that strawman bashing? you tell me since you're the expert.
Originally posted by rudester
I just want to say my two cents
No one has the right to say your a dangerous person because you are wearing a hoodie!!! People have been wearing hoods since early on, no one has the right to say your dangerous just because your dressed a certain way that doesnt fit their idea of normal. They forgot to say that it was also raining that night, so that explains the hoodie...
its unfortunate that its even up for debate, whether a commonly worn article of clothing renders one deserving of being profiled and even killed. sad really. anyway, yes i agree.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
in COURT and as a prosecutor or attorney, i would have to find my own expert to contradict the claim. correct. however a debate falls under philosophical discussion. instead of calling in experts, we are referencing already existing internet sources...unless you actually expect me to start writing letters to various audio experts asking their professional opinions? really?
hahahhaha
You do realize that this is what you are demanding of me after I already provided you the expert opinion you dearly desire, right?
You are taking it a step further and demanding MORE expert opinion.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
well i can assure you that their time is not free. tell you what. wire me some cash and i'll make it happen.
No, you can kindly accept the expert opinion or reject it based off of real science and the expert opinion of another that contradicts the "punks" claim.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you are using clown tactics, dadudemon. shifting the rule of burden of proof from debate to judicial procedure. is that where we reach out impasse and you start dancing and juggling?
No, that's not at all what I am doing.
You are trying to make a philosophical debate of this when it is not strictly philosophical, at all. There is real evidence, real science, and real proof being sifted through, here. It is not about an ethereal and supernatural soul or an unseen God like you literally tried to make this into.
There was never an impasse. This was always you making a silly request for illogical reasons because you drank too much and were bored.
Dude, I am coming up to Jersey in a few months. I will have some drinks with you and we can argue philosophy, then. Until then, bring your contradictory proof to the table or accept the expert opinion.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Er, you realize that not only was that a quote from you but you repeated the same statement at the end of the argument, right? His comparison to the other two is ridiculous but strawman is definately not the fallacy you're looking for. Red herring, maybe.
I can explain why it is a strawman.
He is using my own argument specifically out of context and representing it in a way that I did not argue it. Ergo, a strawman.
However, I do commend you for being objective and providing you input despite our colorful past. That's quite big of you.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
quick rewind since the context is long gone. post which started it all:false dilemma aside, ddm made the claim that this one expert was the sole opinion to be taken at face value, and thus that i could not 'have my cake and eat it too' so to speak.
That's not a false dilemma. You want to discredit the expert through some unknown means with some unknown proof (that you have yet to address) but cannot do so. You cannot accept one assessment of his and then reject another just because it does not fit your agenda. He used the same tools for each assessment and used the same methods. You either accept that his audio analysis is of high quality and admissible as an argument in this case or you reject him and his methods. You must, of course, justify why you reject it.
If you want to accept only one portion of his argument but not the other, then you are really needing to back some of those claims up because it becomes a giant slippery slope to try and tackle his assertions from that angle.
And that is not the quote that "started this all".
It was when you made your snide comment about "punks" not being it.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i returned fire by stating the fact that several experts have studied the scream in question and all agree that it was likely martin, yet only mr. owen came up with the 'punks' theory. thus it was NOT commonly accepted among said experts.
That's completely non-sequitor. None of the other experts were interested in that portion of the audio recording, as far as we know. And there are only two main experts being touted and paraded about.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
would you suggest that unless i can find quotes to the contrary, it is to be assumed that they all concur by default?
That is not what is being asserted. This is actually what a false dilemma is. One person having an expert opinion, based on science and facts, does not make every expert in his or her field automatically concur with him.
By the way, here is the quote that "started it".
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i just find it fascinatingi only wish i had that power of bullshitting.
i mean...he clearly said "****ing coons", and people have been hoodwinked into thinking he said "punks".
the jedi mind trick is real, people. its ****ing real!