Guess the IQ

Diogenes said:
More ad hominem opinion-mongering?

I understand if you don't understand the illogicality of your own post, of course.

Demanding that someone prove a negative is generally illogical and fallacious.

Here's a clear breakdown of why, with reasoning and examples:

1. The Core Issue: Burden of Proof
  • In logic and rational discourse, the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim (an assertion that something exists or is true). They must provide evidence to support it.
  • Proving a negative (e.g., "Prove that you aren't in a cult" shifts this burden unfairly. It's often impossible to provide conclusive proof because:
    • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (a principle from epistemology and science).
    • The universe of possible evidence is infinite or unknowable; you can't search every corner of reality to confirm something isn't there.
2. Why It's Impractical or Impossible
  • Falsifiability problem: Philosopher Karl Popper emphasized that scientific claims must be falsifiable (you can potentially disprove them). Positive claims can often be tested (e.g., "You're in a cult" can be falsified by finding evidence that someone is in a cult. Negatives like "Prove you're not in a cult" can't be proven.
  • Example: If I claimed "You have a dildo up your ass," demanding that you prove it isn't there is illogical.
3. The Fallacy in Action: Argument from Ignorance
  • This is formally known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance). It assumes something is true (or false) just because it hasn't been proven otherwise.
    • Bad: "You can't has proven you aren't in a cult, so you must be in a cult." This illogically shifts the burden of proof to prove the negative.)
Click to expand...
People with IQs of 80 find it hard to understand sarcasm since they often take everything literally.
 
Diogenes said:
G4uZ-g2bQAUxown
Click to expand...
I think she's more of a Jabba instructor...

2000
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It is an example of a loaded question.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're showing your ignorance again.

A loaded question would be something like you ask every day, such as;

"Why do you support a party that doesn't care about people?"

Poor Richard Saunders said:
It assumes I am a Marxist with no evidence in support of it.
Click to expand...

Even if it did, that wouldn't be a loaded question. Further, the body of your posts here supports my statement.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Another logical fallacy. Something isn't true simply because you claim it is.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. Things are true because facts and evidence support them. You consistently post in opposition to America, Capitalism, and individual liberty. You consistently post in favor of illegal immigration, collectivism, and authoritarian rule by your party. There is a large body of evidence.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Of course, you are in a cult because that has been well established by the body of your posts.
Click to expand...

What cult do you allege I am in? The AGW cult? Mormonism? A Swifty?

Poor Richard Saunders said:
(Does that statement of mine establish you are in a cult? If we follow your logic it does.)
Click to expand...

Only if opposing your party is a "cult."

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You have the opportunity to demonstrate you are not in a cult.
Click to expand...

By accepting Joseph Stalin as my personal savior and voting for the party always?

Poor Richard Saunders said:
I guess until you can show you aren't in a cult it has been established you are in a cult.
Click to expand...

Pretzel logic.


I know you are trying to copy me, but you lack the intellect for it.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Nope, you're showing your ignorance again.

A loaded question would be something like you ask every day, such as;

"Why do you support a party that doesn't care about people?"



Even if it did, that wouldn't be a loaded question. Further, the body of your posts here supports my statement.



Obviously not. Things are true because facts and evidence support them. You consistently post in opposition to America, Capitalism, and individual liberty. You consistently post in favor of illegal immigration, collectivism, and authoritarian rule by your party. There is a large body of evidence.



What cult do you allege I am in? The AGW cult? Mormonism? A Swifty?



Only if opposing your party is a "cult."



By accepting Joseph Stalin as my personal savior and voting for the party always?



Pretzel logic.


I know you are trying to copy me, but you lack the intellect for it.
Click to expand...
You might want to actually look up what the loaded question fallacy is before you continue to make yourself look like a fool.
 
Diogenes said:
Demanding that someone else prove a negative seems illogical, in my view.
Click to expand...
It is. Conducting a negative proof or attempting to force a negative proof are both fallacies. It's the old guilty until proven innocent routine...a favorite tactic of the Democrats.

The reason these are both fallacies is because they are an attempt at proving a circular argument True (a circular argument fallacy), simply by stating that there is no way to prove otherwise (which is correct...you cannot prove a circular argument either True or False).

They therefore conclude the circular argument just be True, which is the base fallacy that both the negative proof fallacy and the attempt to force a negative proof fallacy are based.

Attempting to prove a circular argument True (by any method) is what a fundamentalist does.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It is an example of a loaded question. It assumes I am a Marxist with no evidence in support of it.
Click to expand...
You are a Marxist. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Another logical fallacy. Something isn't true simply because you claim it is.
Click to expand...
Denial of self fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Of course, you are in a cult because that has been well established by the body of your posts. (Does that statement of mine establish you are in a cult? If we follow your logic it does.)
Click to expand...
Go learn what 'cult' means. Redefinition fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You have the opportunity to demonstrate you are not in a cult. I guess until you can show you aren't in a cult it has been established you are in a cult.
Click to expand...
Attempted force of negative proof fallacy (fundamentalism).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top