Charleston Shooting-Nine Dead in Church

Originally posted by Astner
No. When he is questioned about the statistics, in which case he'd likely defend their validity because it's essential to his argument; that is when he's faced with the burden of proof. But not before that.

The first part puts the onus on the original poster, and the second on the commentor. The statistics could be completely false with no actual substance AND racist (whatever that would mean), or they could be substantiated by recorded information AND racist; also, it could be considered not racist at all. So the original poster would need to show why they are believable or valid, but would not need to answer whether it is racist or not.

Originally posted by Mindset
The first part puts the onus on the original poster, and the second on the commentor. The statistics could be completely false with no actual substance

But unless it is questioned and the uploader chooses to defend the validity of the statistics, the burden of proof won't rest on him.

The burden of proof always rest on the one making the assertion. And so it's first when the uploader starts to argue that the statistics are valid that he's faced with the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Astner

But unless it is questioned and the uploader chooses to defend the validity of the statistics, the burden of proof won't rest on him.

wrong. the burden of proof is on the person who presents a statistic to cite it. you fail. get out.

Originally posted by Astner
And that is why it should be questioned, especially if it doesn't seem valid.

But unless it is questioned and the uploader chooses to defend the validity of the statistics, the burden of proof won't rest on him.

The burden of proof always rest on the one making the assertion. And so it's first when the uploader starts to argue that the statistics are valid that he's faced with the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
wrong. the burden of proof is on the person who presents a statistic to cite it. you fail. get out.

Yes, you should provide source references to fortify your position when using evidence, but that has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

The burden of proof simply denotes one's obligation to defend one's assertions.

Originally posted by Mindset
It was questioned when the guy said, "I don't believe these statistics...".

If yes: then the burden of proof rests on the uploader.

If no: then the burden of proof doesn't rest on the uploader.

However, just because the burden of proof doesn't rest on the uploader doesn't mean that he's in a better position.

Originally posted by KingD19
There's even more evidence it was a hate crime as he "allowed" one of the women to live and told her to tell people what happened.

No proof that makes this a hate crime or racial killing any more saying this was religious killings of people gathering in church for solace and prayer.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No proof that makes this a hate crime or racial killing any more saying this was religious killings of people gather in church for solace and prayer.

Even if we dismiss his wearing of Apartheid-era/white supremacy regimes as nothing more than "poor fashion sense", his comment (if he did say it) of:

“You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”

Is fairly damning that he was racially motivate.

The guy was a mentally ill deranged maniac. He thinks he from South Africa. Clearly delusional.

Even if that's true, not sure that somehow makes it not a hate crime.

It could have been a hate religious killing. Or better yet, domestic terrorism.

Also, I love how Obama bring up gun control and the liberals are screaming "How on earth did he get a gun!!" when he stole the gun from his father.

As bash said, this is probably a false flag attack.

Couldn't it be all three?

Haven't heard that yet, but if true, it seems his father's lack of gun control allowed him to arm himself. So those liberals would have point.

Do you really think that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It could have been a hate religious killing. Or better yet, domestic terrorism.

Also, I love how Obama bring up gun control and the liberals are screaming "How on earth did he get a gun!!" when he stole the gun from his father.

As bash said, this is probably a false flag attack.

oh dear lol

Hahaha

Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't it be all three?

Haven't heard that yet, but if true, it seems his father's lack of gun control allowed him to arm himself. So those liberals would have point.

Do you really think that?

It could be.

They really would not have a leg to stand on with gun control, how do you control a thief?

The kid was a maniac. If the guy had killed a bunch of white people, its going to be labeled a massacre just the same. The fact that its color add's gas to the issues.

I find it funny that these keep happening in quicker numbers in session then ever before in Obama's last terms.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was actually a CIA operative.

Could Obama be anymore transparent?

Originally posted by Mindset
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was actually a CIA operative.

Could Obama be anymore transparent?

Very good point

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It could be.

They really would not have a leg to stand on with gun control.

The kid was a maniac. If the guy had killed a bunch of white people, its going to be labeled a massacre just the same. The fact that its color add's gas to the issues.

I find it funny that these keep happening in quicker numbers in session then ever before in Obama's last terms.

Actually, some whacko easily getting his hands on a gun and then murdering people is the "leg" the pro 'better gun control/laws' advocates stand on.

If it was white people it wouldn't change the gun control issue.

Not sure where you're going with this, are you blaming Obama?

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, some whacko easily getting his hands on a gun and then murdering people is the "leg" better gun control/laws stands on.

If it was white people it wouldn't change the gun control issue.

Not sure we're you're going with this, are you blaming Obama?

He immediately went political with it, before some families even been notified there loved ones passed away.

Poor form.

Originally posted by Robtard

Not sure we're you're going with this

that's a whole new level of typo