Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Moral Orel]

Burden of proof lies upon the positive claim, not the negative.

Why?

 

[Astrid]

Hi Ana,

Can you give me an example of a self-refuting axiom. It may be the case that we have a different understanding of what an axiom is. I hold that true axiomatic statements are conceptually irreducible, and identify a fundamental primary fact.

Dunno that's its a axiom, but " it's never too late" sure
is self refutational.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi Ana,

Can you give me an example of a self-refuting axiom. It may be the case that we have a different understanding of what an axiom is. I hold that true axiomatic statements are conceptually irreducible, and identify a fundamental primary fact.

After looking it up...it's clear my conception of axiomatic has strayed from the common definition.

That's probably because I struggle a bit with self evident truths.

Regardless, I would have said an axiom is the idea or concept or belief that basically acts as the bottom floor for other beliefs. I think conceptually irreducible seems right but I can't be certain it is. Nor do I think an axiomatic belief has to be a true belief....it might not even be knowable.

For example, you can take any number of beliefs, concepts, or ideas thrown around by gender ideologues and trans activists and grind them down to the foundational belief of the existence of a "feeling" of being a man ir woman while inhabiting the biologically opposite body.

That's really the "ground floor" of all other claims they make....and beliefs they hold.

It's also not knowable. I don't see any way of actually knowing what such a person is feeling or if the claimed incongruence with reality exists. It is possibly true, possibly false, but absolutely necessary for the rest of the claims and beliefs they hold to be true.

So when I say that some axiomatic statements can be self refuting....and I hope I don't get this wrong because I just thought of it....would be something like....

There is nothing about the universe which is permanently true. In order to be true, it would have to be permanent, which then becomes something we can recognise as permanently true about the universe.

That's a play on something like....

The only reliable aspect of reality is change. If true, the statement itself becomes a reliable unchanging aspect of reality that renders itself false.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because you can't prove a negative

That's not true. But it's ironically convenient that your claim about negative claims is a negative claim itself, ain't it? And, funnily enough, my refutation is also a negative claim, so I don't have any burden of proof either, lol.

Here's the thing... You believe your claim [you can't prove a negative] is true, and you believe that you cannot prove your claim, so you're acknowledging that you have no reason to believe your claim is true.

So you believe things for no reason. Why do you believe things for no reason, Ana?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Nonono I had no such thought

Please read my PM and respond

I did respond and please take what I said to heart and think about it. It's not something I usually tell others but I am 99 percent sure of what's coming and I mean it's imminent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not true.

Wow....I can see we're past that old informal agreement we had. You could have told me of course....but then again, I can understand trying to wriggle out of your mistake.

You failed to prove a negative.

I'll just call this the end of any discussion between us. I'll still be refuting your posts of course but won't be responding to any replies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow....I can see we're past that old informal agreement we had. You could have told me of course....but then again, I can understand trying to wriggle out of your mistake.

You failed to prove a negative.

I'll just call this the end of any discussion between us. I'll still be refuting your posts of course but won't be responding to any replies.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Moral Orel]

Wow....I can see we're past that old informal agreement we had. You could have told me of course....

That wasn't me. Sorry, bro. After all we've said to each other over the years I can't believe you really think I'd get offended over a dirty joke. I'm certainly not going to get a post deleted that has the central claim I'm preparing to rail on for the next ten pages, lol. Now I can't prove the positive claim that you ever said it!

You failed to prove a negative.

I never said I would. I said:

"[your claim is] not true."

I can prove my claim. But it's a negative claim so you told me that I don't have the burden of proof. Am I obligated to prove my negative claim now? If so, then you first. Here's yours:

"You can't prove a negative"

What does it mean if you can't prove your claim?
What would it mean if you did prove your negative claim?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can prove my claim.

Well? We're waiting.

Edit- Can I at least expect a response in the next 24hrs? Or do you need time to see if that guy who made the YouTube video you watched on proving a negative responds and explains how to prove a negative? I know you said a lot in your responses, and I'll gladly reply, once you actually prove a negative. Until then, it seems like any further discussion on the topic is superfluous. Yes, it's reasonable for me to expect an answer....because as you can see, you made a positive claim. You claim to be able to prove your previous claim that it is not true that you cannot prove a negative (or more simply, you can prove a negative). I'm looking forward to seeing it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well? We're waiting.

Edit- Can I at least expect a response in the next 24hrs? Or do you need time to see if that guy who made the YouTube video you watched on proving a negative responds and explains how to prove a negative? I know you said a lot in your responses, and I'll gladly reply, once you actually prove a negative. Until then, it seems like any further discussion on the topic is superfluous. Yes, it's reasonable for me to expect an answer....because as you can see, you made a positive claim. You claim to be able to prove your previous claim that it is not true that you cannot prove a negative (or more simply, you can prove a negative). I'm looking forward to seeing it.

You're replying to my post even though you said you wouldn't do that anymore. Are we back on speaking terms now that you know someone else reported your joke?

ETA - I'm gone from 2pm-ish to 1am-ish EST basically every week day. I refuse to carry a cell phone, so I only respond to posts outside of that time.

 

[Kylie]

You're replying to my post even though you said you wouldn't do that anymore. Are we back on speaking terms now that you know someone else reported your joke?

Would it help if I asked the question so you'd answer it instead of bickering?

 

[Moral Orel]

Would it help if I asked the question so you'd answer it instead of bickering?

Well, no. Hopefully his answer is "yes" and we can go back to "bickering" like old times, lol. If @Ana the Ist confirms that he doesn't actually believe I would report him over calling me out on my favorite genre of film, then we're only going to get nastier from here.

 

[Kylie]

Well, no. Hopefully his answer is "yes" and we can go back to "bickering" like old times, lol. If @Ana the Ist confirms that he doesn't actually believe I would report him over calling me out on my favorite genre of film, then we're only going to get nastier from here.

So, just out of curiosity, what is the claim that you say you can prove? I tried following the conversation back through the quotes, but it looks like a post got deleted somewhere along the line.

 

[Joy]

Mod Hat On

Some Posts and Responses
have been Removed
in
a Thread Clean

RV:Disruptive Behavior

To maintain the peace and harmony on CF you must refrain from doing the following on the public forums:

● Making posts that speak of any Staff action either with you or another member (including any bans, warnings, or editing or removal of posts)

If you feel the need to discuss another members behavior, or have a issue about CF, it's staff or policies, please make a ticket in Support and discuss it in private with our Admins and Advisors.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're replying to my post even though you said you wouldn't do that anymore. Are we back on speaking terms now that you know someone else reported your joke?

I'll give it consideration. I thought of the sheer volume of reportable posts on the last thread we interacted, and found it remarkable I got reported in 1 on this thread....but perhaps there's a nosy Nancy who feels obligated to report posts that have nothing to do with themselves.

ETA - I'm gone from 2pm-ish to 1am-ish EST basically every week day. I refuse to carry a cell phone, so I only respond to posts outside of that time.

Thanks, I'm definitely not going to immediately forget this information after reading it. Quit stalling.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would it help if I asked the question so you'd answer it instead of bickering?

You assume too much, some people enjoy a good bicker. It's like old friends calling each hurtful names when they cross paths again.

I don't know if he has the same emotional stunting as me or whether his sense of self is so secure online criticism can't hurt him....but it's become recognizable over time. It's not unusual for an brief and normal initial reply to result in some degree of overt hostility or rudeness. I could be wrong...but I don't think he really means it...I certainly don't.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'll give it consideration. I thought of the sheer volume of reportable posts on the last thread we interacted, and found it remarkable I got reported in 1 on this thread

Dude, you made a bestiality joke. Of course you upset some prude. I find it remarkable that you remember all those other reportable posts and think I would report you over a joke and none of those. I don't think you've said on here exactly what you do, but aren't you in law enforcement of some kind? I hope you aren't a detective of any sort, lol.

Thanks, I'm definitely not going to immediately forget this information after reading it. Quit stalling.

lol You sure do love your Argument from Silence fallacy. That's why I like exploiting it so much. All I have to do is not say something, and you'll spew forth a bevy of unfounded false claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's not true. But it's ironically convenient that your claim about negative claims is a negative claim itself, ain't it? And, funnily enough, my refutation is also a negative claim, so I don't have any burden of proof either, lol.

Here's the thing... You believe your claim [you can't prove a negative] is true, and you believe that you cannot prove your claim, so you're acknowledging that you have no reason to believe your claim is true.

So you believe things for no reason. Why do you believe things for no reason, Ana?

The reason the claim that you can’t prove a negative is so often used is because 99% of the time it can’t be proven. Yeah; there are scenarios where it can be proven; I can prove to myself that Santa Clause does not exist, but I cannot prove to you that Santa clause does not exist; because there will always be an excuse you can come up with that dispels my negative claim. To prove he does exist, all I gotta do is bring you to him; can’t make up an excuse for that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ugh... Alright. @Ken-1122 @Ana the Ist @Kylie @Estrid

You've all chimed in either vocally or through 'Winner' ratings in support of this "you can't prove a negative" idea, so I'm going to spell it out for all of you at once.

If you can't prove a negative claim, then nothing has ever been disproven. Every single time someone made a claim such as, "blah blah blah is true" and you responded with "no, it is not true and here's why" you made a negative claim and tried to prove it. You all do it all the time, and I don't know why people don't notice. Some common examples:

What is an 'alibi'? If you are accused of a crime at location X and you can verify you were in location Y at the time, you prove that you were not at location X at the time.

Is the Earth flat? If you think we proved then Earth is round, then you think that we proved the Earth is not flat.

Want to see how simple it to make and prove a negative claim? I'll do it in three sentences:

The next sentence I write will not contain the letter 'q'.
Oops, I did it in two.​

Every positive claim that is proven also proves any mutually exclusive negative claims.

Is the theory of evolution proven? Then special creation of humans did not happen.
Is the universe 13.7 billion years old? Then the universe was not created 6000 years ago.
Did the moon landing happen? Then it was not faked.

This is normal, ordinary stuff that you do all day every day. ~(n & ~n)

If you disagree with anything I've said, and you want to offer a refutation, you must claim "What Orel said is not true and this is why" and then you'll be making a negative claim and attempting to prove it which will only prove me right.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. It does not matter if that claim is phrased as a positive or negative.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ugh... Alright. @Ken-1122 @Ana the Ist @Kylie @Estrid

You've all chimed in either vocally or through 'Winner' ratings in support of this "you can't prove a negative" idea, so I'm going to spell it out for all of you at once.

If you can't prove a negative claim, then nothing has ever been disproven. Every single time someone made a claim such as, "blah blah blah is true" and you responded with "no, it is not true and here's why" you made a negative claim and tried to prove it. You all do it all the time, and I don't know why people don't notice. Some common examples:

What is an 'alibi'? If you are accused of a crime at location X and you can verify you were in location Y at the time, you prove that you were not at location X at the time.

Is the Earth flat? If you think we proved then Earth is round, then you think that we proved the Earth is not flat.

Want to see how simple it to make and prove a negative claim? I'll do it in three sentences:

The next sentence I write will not contain the letter 'q'.
Oops, I did it in two.​

Every positive claim that is proven also proves any mutually exclusive negative claims.

Is the theory of evolution proven? Then special creation of humans did not happen.
Is the universe 13.7 billion years old? Then the universe was not created 6000 years ago.
Did the moon landing happen? Then it was not faked.

This is normal, ordinary stuff that you do all day every day. ~(n & ~n)

If you disagree with anything I've said, and you want to offer a refutation, you must claim "What Orel said is not true and this is why" and then you'll be making a negative claim and attempting to prove it which will only prove me right.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. It does not matter if that claim is phrased as a positive or negative.

I do not disagree with you here. As I said, there are some negatives that can be proven; like when a positive is proven, the opposite/negative is proven also as you’ve mentioned. But there are some negatives that cannot be proven (like my Santa Clause example) and from my experience, usually when the “can’t prove a negative” claim is used, it is in defense of the claim that if you can’t prove a claim false, you must accept it as true. However, if a person were to assert a negative claim, it is up to them to prove that negative claim, otherwise they should not be asserting a negative if they aren't prepared to prove it.