data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a question"
I keep getting collared by a bloke who says that the war in Afghanistan is a cover for our Illuminati Freemason Shapeshifting Lizard masters to corner the market in mind-bending drugs. "It's true," he says, "I heard it on TalkSport". Tell us your stories of encounters with tinfoil hatters.
Thanks to Davros' Granddad
( , Thu 27 Aug 2009, 13:52)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a QotW comment"
it's on whoever is making a claim. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I make a claim, the burden of proof is on me to prove it. If I can't, you can dismiss it without having to supply proof. Hence why 'God exists because you can't prove he doesn't' is a stupid argument. The burden of proof is on those who claim God exists, not on those who claim he doesn't.
( , Tue 1 Sep 2009, 17:47, 1 reply)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/277f8/277f86e59dcd9b7e049850fa450a6ba38bdde3db" alt="This is a QotW comment"
Thats what I was saying dude, could've worded it a little better to be honest, I meant like my claim is that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, if you want to challenge that the burdon of proof is on the challenger.
I think thats right - "The burden of proof is on those who claim conspiracies exists, not on those who claim they doesn't."
( , Tue 1 Sep 2009, 17:59, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread