violence, nudity, and morality

[salm]

Negatives sure can be proven. "The sky isn´t green" would be one of them.
The question isn´t if a statement is a negative the question is if it´s falsifiable. If a statement isn´t falsifiable it doesn´t make any sense. I think that´s what most people actually mean when they say "you can´t prove a negative" because a lot of negatives are not falsifiable.

[Darth Wong]

The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is overly simplistic, and therefore incorrect. I can easily prove certain negatives: for example, if you say there is a loaf of bread in the breadbox on your kitchen counter, I can prove that there isn't one by simply opening it up and looking inside.

When people say you can't prove a negative, that is a carelessly worded way of saying that you can't prove a certain kind of negatives, specifically a universal existential negative, where something is said to exist ... somewhere. It's too vague to be disproven because it cannot make any testable predictions, unlike the "bread in my kitchen breadbox" statement.

In the case of claims of social harm, the point is not that he is asking you to prove a negative. The point is that you should not HAVE to prove anything, since he is attempting to justify the use of coercion against society, hence HE must provide evidence for his supporting claim of harm which necessitates this coercion.

[Formless]

I don't think he ever openly stated a desire to use coercion or censorship-- although his opinion that the fans of this series are all amoral put him firmly in the category of Generalizing Asshole. 'Course, his thorough misunderstanding of the Burden of Proof and his refusal to back up his opinions don't help him either.

The funniest thing about this guy is that the first time I ever talked to him (on a totally different topic in a totally different thread), he started by saying "Wow, an Eva fan I enjoy chatting with." which pretty much cemented in my mind that he was going to turn into a whiny asshole sometime down the road. When he brought up this topic, he removed all doubt.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think he ever openly stated a desire to use coercion or censorship-- although his opinion that the fans of this series are all amoral put him firmly in the category of Generalizing Asshole. 'Course, his thorough misunderstanding of the Burden of Proof and his refusal to back up his opinions don't help him either.

Even if he doesn't advocate coercion, he is nevertheless making a positive claim of fact, ie- that pornography causes harm. He must justify this claim; he cannot simply state it as fact and then challenge you to disprove it.

[Formless]

True. I will remember that next time, since this guy is done.

Heck, I think the only reason he did it this time was as a "I'll show you by throwing your own challenge back in your face!" kiddie response. I don't think he really understood what it was he was asking me to do in the first place.

[Rye]

own statement since your bit with math wasn't proving the negative at all except to go "it's not this variable, so there!"

Again, prove the statement if you want to make such a bold proclaimation. You provided a very skewed example and result to provide what you thought as evidence.

Uh, he did prove a negative. Literally, he actually provided a proof, and you're not going to refute that x != 2 in that proof, because you can't.

Proving negatives (and positives) is literally logic 101. Every positive claim makes negative ones when you state it, inherently, unless you're some sort of irrationalist or solipsist. In a binary system, if a switch is at 1, it is also not at 0; a light being turned on proves it is not turned off and not broken.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, the statement "you can't prove a negative" is shorthand. It should actually say "you can't prove a universal existential negative", since the positive statement is so vague that it cannot be negated.

[Ghost Rider]

I will give that, I should stated it better and as such I did make a mistake.

But jesus Rye...a bit late of response towards it? I mean Mike and a couple others stated why I was wrong...aiming for a few months later just kinda either seems you just saw this or had been waiting for just a wee bit long of a time

[Formless]

Yeah, and even the last time this thread got resurrected by The Yosemite Bear it was already too late-- the argument's been over for months now. You can go ahead and lock this thread now, I don't really care.

[Rye]

I will give that, I should stated it better and as such I did make a mistake.

But jesus Rye...a bit late of response towards it? I mean Mike and a couple others stated why I was wrong...aiming for a few months later just kinda either seems you just saw this or had been waiting for just a wee bit long of a time

Hah, no, I didn't even notice it had a second page or was ancient. Looking now, the post was at 3:10 AM, and now the board keeps the "unread" thing there even after you've left the site and I'd never read the thread, so that's probably why.

[Ghost Rider]

LOL, ok...we'll end it with this.

To be honest. If someone else wants to make a topic of this, all good. Because this one has gone through at least a couple necros anyways.