In a time of disputed facts, everything is an opinion.
Also, an opinion may not be known to be true when expressed but become true later, like a prediction. A prediction is not a fact.
I predict (based on scientific facts AND opinions) that the southern half of Florida will be under water by the end of the century. I’ve been saying this for years. The recent flood surge and destruction from the hurricane is just the tip of the melting iceberg. But it’s not a fact until it happens. And it’s not a fact if it doesn’t happen.
I was still editing my response so you probably didn’t see it, but I added that I wouldn’t even suspect you if I had no proof or even a reason to suspect you. A broken arm isn’t a reason to suspect you.
But you saw my fist approaching your face, you know. But you have no proof, so your accusation must be presumed false. And I now get to incessently belittle you for your subsequent fears since they are clearly irrational and “wrong” due to your lack of proof.
With no ability to back them up all you have is faith.
Note that it’s not merely a lack of adequate evidence, it’s a lack of any evidence whatsoever. The court won’t sanction you for losing, but it will sanction you for making a claim and then not providing any evidence to support that claim.
Taken as true without any proof is the domain of religion.
No. Until some evidence has been presented that something happened the default assumption is that it didn’t. The burden of proof lies with the side making the claim and until that burden has been met there is no need of a rebuttal.
Except most of it isn’t even that. It’s crap that has a fair number of faithful behind it but any evidence for it has been thoroughly demolished.
I see no reason for the word “most” in your last sentence.
But you want us to take those broken bones on faith.
First, calling something unproven and therefore an opinion doesn’t make it so. Second, the vast majority of such bullying I see comes from the right. While I see bullying from the left it’s normally in the form of an overreaction to something true, not an attempt to convert an opinion into reality.
What broken hand? If anything, I see a drunk who took a fall and is looking for someone other than Mr. Newton to blame for his injury.
And I’ll disagree. I believe this map will work for everyone:
While it’s flat enough that I can’t find any topographic lines on it it still will give you the elevation of any point you click. It didn’t take me long to find points in the southern half that will only be underwater if the antarctic cap were melted–and that’s not expected by 2100.
That’s exactly the point. Problem is far too many think it only applies to the other side of the argument, not their own side.
At least I’m giving it the respect of being an opinion, rather than summarily declaring it outrageous misinformation that is the utmost threat to society simply because it does not reconcile with my own opinion.
It’s in the form of an overreaction to stuff they dont like and dont want discussed at all, regardless of if it is true or not.
Then this would be sufficient proof and the fear would not be irrational. You’re not good enough of a criminal to leave no trace, so I’d be able to prove it.
I’m not an expert on religions, but the examples I had in mind are Confucianism (which is more of a way of life than a religion) and Pastafarianism (the only one that got everything right ).
Fine, maybe not the entire southern Florida, but the coastal areas where most people live. And maybe not the whole time, but with more extreme weather events it’ll get flooded often enough to make it hard to live in (or, more importantly, to insure).
Proof to you, but it’s not proof to anyone else. And after all, we’re talking about others requiring proof before accepting your claims to be not false.
And you’ve followed the typical path - make extreme blanket declarations, then start hedging and backtracking when called out about such declarations not holding up.
I feel bad reviving this part of the thread since I clearly missed it while my internet was messed up yesterday, but it seems like you two are missing something fundamental.
What is proved in a court of law is completely separate from the court of public opinion. If anything actually makes it to court, there is way more than a thread of truth to it. Does anyone on here think OJ Simpson is not a murderer?
Which is exactly why, when a lawsuit is filed, you can assume there is likely something backing up the claim in the suit.
Based on what you just said above, no that isn’t the default assumption. Once a lawsuit has been filed, the default assumption should now be: “something untoward could have happened here” not “nothing wrong happened at all.”
Beside the plaintiff flat out lying and 100% making things up (unlikely), could there be other reasons that the claims aren’t valid? Sure. But that is different than “assume nothing happened” even though one side is claiming it did and is willing to go to court over it (and spend time/money doing that). If going to court were completely free, then I would consider your position in some circumstances.
That is in a criminal trial. Not a civil trial. In a criminal trial, a defendant can refuse to take the stand to claim they didn’t do it and just have their lawyers say the prosecution didn’t meet the burden of proof. Many criminal trials are won that way. Not so with civil trials. If the defendant doesn’t refute the claim, as long as the plaintiff is credible, the plaintiff has met the burden of proof (anything over 50%) simply by making the claim.
OJ was a matter of proven beyond a reasonable doubt and with a bad cop in the case that’s a pretty hard threshold to meet.
However, you are making a fundamental mistake here in assuming that because it makes it to court there is truth to it. Normally that would be true as lawyers aren’t going to take a nothing to court and risk the other side being awarded costs. However, this is a special case–they are using your belief that nothing goes to court without a fair amount of truth to it to convince you there is truth to it when in reality it’s an absolute nothing. They go to court, the court asks them to make claims, they have nothing and know it so they can’t make claims without risking being sanctioned, the case is immediately dismissed.
We’ve seen similar abuse of the pre-print process of scientific papers–utter crap getting released on pre-print servers and taken as evidence of scientific support.
No, the sanctions only happen if you make claims in court. Filing a bogus lawsuit just gets it dismissed. You only have to make specific claims in court, not in the initial filing.
When the court tosses it because nothing relevant has been claimed it’s back to the default of nothing happened.
They’re willing to pay the costs because it gets support for their position. It also brings in donations, they’re almost certainly making money off the bogus lawsuits.
The plaintiff is credible, they are presenting a reasonable scenario by which the defendant’s actions actually caused them harm and that the harm warrants compensation. (Let’s consider: I’m sneaking through the wilderness, I inadvertently sneak up on you, scare you, your reaction causes you to slip and fall. My attempting to get a good wildlife picture doesn’t make your fall warrant compensation.)
As you say, Confucianism is more a way of life than a religion.
That part I will agree with. An awful lot of cities lie very close to sea level. (They’re built where the river meets the ocean. This is typically on a delta, deltas are flat by their very nature.)
Now, we could reasonably live in such areas–there are primitive cultures that manage this perfectly well. Build everything on stilts, when the waters come no harm is done. The existing buildings, though–they’re going to be lost.
Social media watchdogs, civil rights groups and many other said they already observed an uptick in abuse.
“Seems a bit of a comms issue for Twitter that Musk’s takeover has triggered a wave of offensive tweets from people who now think that’s okay thanks to Musk, and no-one seems to know if the reporting system is still used by Twitter, or it’s just a racist and abusive free for all,” tweeted Eliot Higgins, founder of the investigative outlet Bellingcat.
Funny how there’s no mention of what this supposed offensive hate speech is, only vague claims that it is happening. I suspect any detailed reveiw would show most of it is simply differing opinions on matters, that have just as much right to be stated as any other opinion.
I’d think those “Human Rights Groups” would be more concered about opposing the blatant attempts to criminalize personal thoughts and feelings… I’ve noted before, one of the primary causes for the rise in suicides and violent outbursts is the non-stop insistance on declaring people to be horrible people who should be purged from society, just because of what they think or feel about certain hot-button subjects. This incessent attack is one of the most widespread, institutionalized violations of human rights occuring today. And Musk’s new Twitter is finally a first step to rectifying the subjective norm - “I may not like what you say, but you still have a right to say it”.
).
