BB.com Misc Refugee Thread

Zaara

Zaara

I'm With HER ♀
1,645
7,627
What is the topic of the dissertation

Sanrith Descartes said:
Let's get to the really important question. Do you drive a Ferrari?
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Void

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
10,090
12,219
Zaara said:
What is the topic of the dissertation



Click to expand...

I have no idea who this guy is and I haven't watched the video yet, but I do admit that I'm stupidly addicted to Uncle Ben and the Urban Rescue Ranch channel, which is where they burnt up this car.

I mean, come on, Big Ounce is the most adorable thing ever.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,153
19,740
Bodhy said:
Claims, propositions, beliefs etc. don't have arbitrary proof burdens attached to them. You're abusing the concept. Proof burdens only apply in dialectical contexts like debates and courtroom proceedings (Where the burden of proof was devised- because someone is threatening a man with his freedom, it's got nothing to do with an intrinsic existential positivity of a claim. Since the defendant claims he is not guilty and has no proof burden).


Hence, why a proof burden is applied to an accuser. You don't acquire arbitrary proof burdens in simple day to day conversation.

Your reasoning assumes I owe you something simply because I said I'm in a PhD program. I don't owe you jack shit.
Click to expand...

Nobody would be asking you for proof if you didn't constantly repeat a completely bullshit lie. Thinking you can say obviously false shit and it's on everyone else to disprove it is more proof you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Unless you're head of the CDC or NIAID, then that shit doesn't fly.
 
B

Bodhy

Karen
<Banned>
497
-4,290
Ambiturner said:
Nobody would be asking you for proof if you didn't constantly repeat a completely bullshit lie. Thinking you can say obviously false shit and it's on everyone else to disprove it is more proof you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Unless you're head of the CDC or NIAID, then that shit doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
What is this "obviously bullshit lie"?


Unless it's something blatantly obviously false, like I said "The Eiffel Tower is in Beijing", you need to actually back up your accusations. Since you're the one throwing accusations around, you acquired the burden of proof.

I didn't acquire any arbitrary burden of proof just for having regular ass conversations.
 
B

Bodhy

Karen
<Banned>
497
-4,290
Void said:
I usually try to stay fairly civil unless I'm shitting on UFO crap, but this is a very convoluted way of trying to cover your ass.

Burden of proof is not the sole domain of an accuser. It is on the person making the initial claim. In the American legal system that happens to be the accuser, because without an accusation there is no trial and everyone stays home. In the scientific community it is the person claiming a particular result. If I claimed to take the world's biggest shit this morning, it would be on me to provide proof. I am literally the only one that can bring forth proof to support my claim. Barring someone stalking you IRL and tracking down your identity, which is obviously frowned upon, there is no one that can provide proof of your claim except you. Sure, you don't owe it to us to provide it, but we then are free to come to any conclusion we want. And based upon what people are saying here, they all choose to believe that you are lying. The only way to change that is to shoulder the burden of proof, otherwise you don't get to complain when we come to conclusions using the only info we have, which is what you post on the internet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nice ramble, but still....no. I don't acquire a burden of proof simply for stating something in casual conversation. Unless, it is something intrinsically outlandish and prima facie implausible, like taking the world's biggest shit, or breaking the Guinness World Record for a motorcycle jump, or having the world's largest cock.

You can believe whatever you want, no one is disputing that. But if you accuse me of being a fraud, you need to back up your accusations with solid, tangible evidence. Not act as if I've acquired some arbitrary burden of proof due to your angry squealing.

If you just admit this is your personal belief which you don't have any tangible evidence for, there's no problem. If you're gonna throw accusations around, that's a different story.
 
Void

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
10,090
12,219
Bodhy said:
Yeah, nice ramble, but still....no. I don't acquire a burden of proof simply for stating something in casual conversation. Unless, it is something intrinsically outlandish and prima facie implausible, like taking the world's biggest shit, or breaking the Guinness World Record for a motorcycle jump, or having the world's largest cock.

You can believe whatever you want, no one is disputing that. But if you accuse me of being a fraud, you need to back up your accusations with solid, tangible evidence. Not act as if I've acquired some arbitrary burden of proof due to your angry squealing.

If you just admit this is your personal belief which you don't have any tangible evidence for, there's no problem. If you're gonna throw accusations around, that's a different story.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just stating something in casual conversation, however. The only reason to even mention it is to lend credibility to something else you were talking about the first time it came up, or to inflate how people value your opinion. One doesn't just casually throw into an online forum conversation that they've written a dissertation blah blah unless there is some reason for doing so. Like if I were to throw into this conversation that I am a lawyer, many people would interpret that as me trying to sound like I'm more credible than you in this argument. To be clear, I am NOT a lawyer, and my opinion is no better than anyone else's, but if I were the only reason to mention it would be to gain an upper hand in the conversation. And people would be completely justified in telling me that I'm full of shit unless I gave some sort of proof. Maybe I would never give that proof either, just as you won't, but if I kept bringing it up and telling people that it is their responsibility to prove I'm not a lawyer...well, you can hopefully see where everyone would laugh at me.
 
Ossoi

Ossoi

Potato del Grande
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
17,906
8,786
this whole conversation is retarded.

Self-appeals to your own authority online are dumb, because there's always someone smarter, making more money, better looking, stronger etc (unless you're Ossoi Ossoi )

Therefore, anyone resorting to that as an iamverysmart is just proving the opposite.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,153
19,740
Bodhy said:
What is this "obviously bullshit lie"?


Unless it's something blatantly obviously false, like I said "The Eiffel Tower is in Beijing", you need to actually back up your accusations. Since you're the one throwing accusations around, you acquired the burden of proof.

I didn't acquire any arbitrary burden of proof just for having regular ass conversations.
Click to expand...

You're too stupid to understand that you're too stupid to understand
 
B

Bodhy

Karen
<Banned>
497
-4,290
Void said:
It wasn't just stating something in casual conversation, however. The only reason to even mention it is to lend credibility to something else you were talking about the first time it came up, or to inflate how people value your opinion. One doesn't just casually throw into an online forum conversation that they've written a dissertation blah blah unless there is some reason for doing so. Like if I were to throw into this conversation that I am a lawyer, many people would interpret that as me trying to sound like I'm more credible than you in this argument. To be clear, I am NOT a lawyer, and my opinion is no better than anyone else's, but if I were the only reason to mention it would be to gain an upper hand in the conversation. And people would be completely justified in telling me that I'm full of shit unless I gave some sort of proof. Maybe I would never give that proof either, just as you won't, but if I kept bringing it up and telling people that it is their responsibility to prove I'm not a lawyer...well, you can hopefully see where everyone would laugh at me.
Click to expand...
I've only ever brought it up when it has some relevance to a conversation, and it's been mentioned casually and in passing.


If I were to invoke the PhD to support a premise in my argument, the burden of proof would actually become moot. If I said " My argument is correct because I'm in a PhD program" that would be a manifestly fallacious argument. That's an appeal to authority (or an appeal to credentials).

FYI, it's only someone's responsibility to prove you're not a lawyer/PhD if they accuse you of frauding. They're free to believe whatever they like, but if they make an accusation, they gotta back it up.

Because calling someone a fraud simply because you don't like their e-persona and act like they need to disprove your fraud allegation....that's guilty until proven innocent. That's not how shit works.
 
  • 1Smuggly
Reactions: 1 user
Bubbles

Bubbles

2022 Asshat Award Winner
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
46,465
-64,874
Bodhy said:
I've only ever brought it up when it has some relevance to a conversation, and it's been mentioned casually and in passing.


If I were to invoke the PhD to support a premise in my argument, the burden of proof would actually become moot. If I said " My argument is correct because I'm in a PhD program" that would be a manifestly fallacious argument. That's an appeal to authority (or an appeal to credentials).

FYI, it's only someone's responsibility to prove you're not a lawyer/PhD if they accuse you of frauding. They're free to believe whatever they like, but if they make an accusation, they gotta back it up.

Because calling someone a fraud simply because you don't like their e-persona and act like they need to disprove your fraud allegation....that's guilty until proven innocent. That's not how shit works.
Click to expand...

gotta love the sadness when people try to use more complex sentence syntax in order to a appear smarter.
Writing a pretend dissertation in gender studies titled "Road to 41% and how it contributes to purifying the gene pool" does not make it real. No matter how dedicated party boy you are
 
Sanrith Descartes

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Gold Donor>
46,745
131,358
Bubbles said:
gotta love the sadness when people try to use more complex sentence syntax in order to a appear smarter.
Writing a pretend dissertation in gender studies titled "Road to 41% and how it contributes to purifying the gene pool" does not make it real. No matter how dedicated party boy you are
Click to expand...
Most likely he is using GPT to write his posts to sound smarter.
 
Masakari

Masakari

Which way, western man?
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,028
52,909
aa.png
 
  • 1WTF
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,153
19,740
Bodhy said:
Because calling someone a fraud simply because you don't like their e-persona and act like they need to disprove your fraud allegation....that's guilty until proven innocent. That's not how shit works.
Click to expand...

Claims to be smart, but thinks message boards works like the American criminal justice system.

Fucking moron
 
Sanrith Descartes

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Gold Donor>
46,745
131,358
Ambiturner said:
Claims to be smart, but thinks message boards works like the American criminal justice system.

Fucking moron
Click to expand...
So what happens when you pull someone over and ask them if they have been drinking tonight and they respond "I don't have to disprove I was drinking officer. The burden of proof is on you to prove I was".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.