Originally posted by dadudemon
What is this, edgey atheistic teenagers on the internet?"Burden of Proof" is a bullshit concept that doesn't show up in almost any legit science.
It works like this:
Science A says 1
Science B says 1.2.
Therefore, Science A is not as correct as B.
You're supposed to do B if you disagree with A. Instead of saying "burden of proof! lawlz!"
If you don't want to entertain outrageous claims, then don't. If you don't want to make the effort to prove something, that will contradict the arguments and facts presented by others, then don't. But don't be lazy and take the old and tired anti-intellectual position of "burden of proof, man!!!"
Edit - I just read some of the lazy-ass arguments in this thread. His claims can be researched. "Burden of proof" my ass. Stop being lazy and search for the answers in the video. If you find that decent research supports his numbers, there's your proof. If you find different numbers, make a counter argument. Stop being lazy dipshits that just want to shit on all idea you think are not "liberal."
I half-agree with you, but burden of proof does often work as a valid heuristic for the simple reason that the space of correct answers is usually smaller than the space of incorrect ones. It's used in plenty of fields outside of Science anyway.
Originally posted by dadudemonNo, the burden of proof is on you to convince me. I have to prove nothing. I am making no claims. That's how it works. I can even demand a higher standard of proof if I feel dissatisfied or feel the proof is cherry-picked, biased or tainted. Disagreeing shows no cowardice if you do not feel something has been proved. To say, I don't agree can be the bravest of all actions. Therefore I demand proof. See how it works?
And he supplied is data. The burden is on you to provide different data. Or to prove your assertion if you disagree.I say the world is round (oblate spheroid):
Now both of us must prove our positions.
Okay, here:
https://www.livescience.com/60544-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round.html
See how this works?
You cannot just disagree with someone. Anyone can disagree. You must prove your position.
What internet morons like to do is just say, "burden of proof."
Pretend dude A says 33 people ate watermelon at the party because he counted all the people who had watermelon on their plates from the photos.
Dude B disagrees. Okay, great. Prove your disagreeable position. What truth is it that you wish to assert? That there were less? More? That there was no watermelon?
Disagreeing is not a position. Asserting another position, which is just as burden proofy as the original, is possible.
In other words, stop being a coward and take a stance. Disagreeing is a cowards way out and does nothing.
Originally posted by snowdragon
This guy, what is cheap pay to you? Do you think those groups are just throwing their labor at whoever despite their market value? Just kick that shit from your head, they aren't "cheap" but they don't cost employers taxes. So in that form, they are cheap but they don't work for pennies.
You're all over the place with your reply...
So what exactly is the "market value" of an illegal immigrant working illegally?
So you have unscrupulous employers willing to use illegal immigrants to dodge the tax system & pay them cash in hand...but you won't find an unemployed American going for the same job as well because it's illegal & immoral?
Originally posted by Esau CairnGood Post
You're all over the place with your reply...So what exactly is the "market value" of an illegal immigrant working illegally?
So you have unscrupulous employers willing to use illegal immigrants to dodge the tax system & pay them cash in hand...but you won't find an unemployed American going for the same job as well because it's illegal & immoral?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, the burden of proof is on you to convince me. I have to prove nothing. I am making no claims. That's how it works. I can even demand a higher standard of proof if I feel dissatisfied or feel the proof is cherry-picked, biased or tainted. Disagreeing shows no cowardice if you do not feel something has been proved. To say, I don't agree can be the bravest of all actions. Therefore I demand proof. See how it works?
That's not how it works. That's how climate change deniers get in power. That's how tobacco corporations got away with denying lung cancer effects of smoking for so long. Because no matter how much proof is presented you can still say "I don't agree, I want more proof"
Originally posted by jaden101
Money spent by rich developed countries on aid and debt relief to poor countries.$160,000,000,000
Money that goes from poor countries to rich countries via enforced trade rules, rich nation's corporations and tax avoidance through trade mispricing
$2,000,000,000,000
Originally posted by jaden101Exactly and they do, that is the whole point Jaden. The burden of proof is subjective as are phrases like beyond reasonable doubt as reasonable doubt varies from individual to individual.You can prove anything with facts, but to do so everyone around a table has to agree on the validity of said facts.
That's not how it works. That's how climate change deniers get in power. That's how tobacco corporations got away with denying lung cancer effects of smoking for so long. Because no matter how much proof is presented you can still say "I don't agree, I want more proof"
Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, the burden of proof is on you to convince me.
No it's not. That's an objective, that has little to do with proof. And it is a futile objective according to actual research about "convincing" people.
The burden is on you to prove why you're unconvinced if you wish to engage in the conversation. You can support that position with your own evidence and arguments.
Just posting "I disagree" is not enough.
Oh, wait a minute, we are talking in circles, now. lol
Originally posted by dadudemonI am not convinced. The burden of proof relies on the person making an assertation proving that assertation. I am not attempting to prove anything, so I need no burden of proof. My idea of reasonable doubt or whatever subjective criteria we set for the burden of proof may be higher than another's. Yes, we are in a circular conversation.
No it's not. That's an objective, that has little to do with proof. And it is a futile objective according to actual research about "convincing" people.The burden is on you to prove why you're unconvinced if you wish to engage in the conversation. You can support that position with your own evidence and arguments.
Just posting "I disagree" is not enough.
Oh, wait a minute, we are talking in circles, now. lol
Originally posted by dadudemon
No it's not. That's an objective, that has little to do with proof. And it is a futile objective according to actual research about "convincing" people.The burden is on you to prove why you're unconvinced if you wish to engage in the conversation. You can support that position with your own evidence and arguments.
Just posting "I disagree" is not enough.
Oh, wait a minute, we are talking in circles, now. lol
The burden of proof is on you to convince me we've been talking in circles! mmm
What's your opinion of Roy Beck's presentation, DDM?
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
What's your opinion of Roy Beck's presentation, DDM?
He opens his presentation with the following statement:
"Some people say that mass immigration into the United States can help reduce world poverty."
First question: who?
Who says this? I've never heard anyone say this. Never. Even the most libtarded of libtards don't say this. Sure, someone somewhere probably said this. Maybe even several people. But almost no one would say something this stupid.
As far as increasing immigration to the US, yes, we should do that. Our immigration laws need to be reformed and we should fix our tax system.
Why? So we get more honest tax revenues, we get more of the best and brightest, and other poorer countries can benefit from the prosperity of the immigrants.
We should expand the H1-B Visa program.
I disagree with his fundamental position that we are stealing their best, brightest, most dissatisfied, and energetic. We are not taking from those countries. They almost always give back to their families and friends. We should speed up and modernize the immigration process and make it easier for the best and brightest to come here. They will contribute. They will pay more into the system. On average, they are overwhelmingly more responsible and well-behaved than even multi-generational American Families.
Also, he gets a +1 from me on a proper and great use of "plurality" when he refereed to Mexicans and their immigration numbers. It is a concept I wish more people understood and used. For example, "White people are no longer the majority in NYC." No, but they are still, by quite the large margin, the plurality.
Conclusion: He is 100% correct in the points he is making. There is nothing factually incorrect with the statements he is making. However, his premise is a strawman. No, we cannot solve poverty with more immigration. No, we should not allow millions and millions of immigrants from all over the world to immigrate to the US. But we should definitely take in more of the best and brightest, fix our tax code to collect more taxes, and modernize our immigration laws and processes.