Someone explain this to me.

Topless women protest Vatican because of gay adoption criticism
While the pope was giving his weekly address on Sunday, four women from the Ukrainian Femen group who were in the crowd, pulled off their T-shirts to reveal the slogan "In Gay we Trust" painted over their bodies.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/topless-women-protest-vatican-gay-adoption-criticized-article-1.1239197#ixzz2I61IqxOJ

I don't get the connection between throwing your clothes off and adoption by gay parents.

Also, I actually agree with the Pope on this one; at least in his claim that nobody has an inherent right to children. Although I disagree with excluding gays on the basis of being gay, you can be denied adoption rights for a great number of reasons that have nothing to do with your orientation. We also have Child Services to take children away from parents who are deemed unfit. So we do at least accept that there is no inherent right to a child. If this is how Vatican City chooses to operate, I see no reason to protest it in such a manner.

"WE'RE SHOWING THAT WE'RE REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE BY BREAKING SEVERAL LAWS. POWER TO THE PEOPLE."

Why? Because naked women get attention. That's why. It's simply a grab for attention.

I'd say the t-shirt pulling was to offend those who want to deny gay adoption. That kind of bigotry tends to correlate with a stronger reaction against people running around nude I think, due to a common source in their religion...

And the problem with how the Vatican views it is not that people do not have an inherent right to children, it's that they're being bigoted in how they would like to distribute that privilege. And personally I don't care about laws being broken when it's pretty harmless, particularly for protesting something more socially harmful.

Dijkstra:
I'd say the t-shirt pulling was to offend those who want to deny gay adoption. That kind of bigotry tends to correlate with a stronger reaction against people running around nude I think, due to a common source in their religion...

And the problem with how the Vatican views it is not that people do not have an inherent right to children, it's that they're being bigoted in how they would like to distribute that privilege. And personally I don't care about laws being broken when it's pretty harmless, particularly for protesting something more socially harmful.

bigotry

noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Going by the dictionary definition, you're being a bigot as well as you don't accept that Vatican City has a right to enforce the laws that it's ruling body feels appropriate. Laws tend to be based off the morals of the society in question. For Vatican City, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and so it is. Personally, I think it's wrong to tell them that they must accept it if they do not wish to. Also note that the protestors are from Ukraine, not VC.

If the pope was rallying against abusive parents then I doubt there would be an issue however he is rallying against gay people from being parents on the basis that they're gay.

The topless thing was more than likely just to piss on the pope's conservative values. Though equating nudity with homophobia is probably a bit of a stretch.

Kopikatsu:

Dijkstra:
I'd say the t-shirt pulling was to offend those who want to deny gay adoption. That kind of bigotry tends to correlate with a stronger reaction against people running around nude I think, due to a common source in their religion...

And the problem with how the Vatican views it is not that people do not have an inherent right to children, it's that they're being bigoted in how they would like to distribute that privilege. And personally I don't care about laws being broken when it's pretty harmless, particularly for protesting something more socially harmful.

bigotry

noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Going by the dictionary definition, you're being a bigot as well as you don't accept that Vatican City has a right to enforce the laws that it's ruling body feels appropriate. Laws tend to be based off the morals of the society in question. For Vatican City, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and so it is. Personally, I think it's wrong to tell them that they must accept it if they do not wish to. Also note that the protestors are from Ukraine, not VC.

Can you prove that I am being stubborn and have shown complete intolerance? Or are you just using a popular, but utterly worthless, tactic of trying to claim whoever said something is bigoted is being bigoted? Because that's not how it works.

There is nothing bigoted about disapproving of their laws. There is nothing bigoted about now showing all of their laws respect.

Also, prove that just because they believe it is wrong it therefore is. Sorry, but that sounds like BS.

Lastly, you're making yourself look bad by trying to say that they were being told they had to accept it when no such thing happened. Defending bigotry is bad enough, but then trying to make the opposition look bad by manufacturing crap like that? Geez.

Dijkstra:

Can you prove that I am being stubborn and have shown complete intolerance? Or are you just using a popular, but utterly worthless, tactic of trying to claim whoever said something is bigoted is being bigoted? Because that's not how it works.

There is nothing bigoted about disapproving of their laws. There is nothing bigoted about now showing all of their laws respect.

Also, prove that just because they believe it is wrong it therefore is. Sorry, but that sounds like BS.

Lastly, you're making yourself look bad by trying to say that they were being told they had to accept it when no such thing happened. Defending bigotry is bad enough, but then trying to make the opposition look bad by manufacturing crap like that? Geez.

Well, yes. Inquery: Under what circumstances would you accept gay lifestyle/couples not being recognized as valid by any nation (But especially one that is founded on a particular religion)? If the answer is 'none', then that fits both criteria.

There is something bigoted about foreigners protesting laws in another state, yes. If people from the UK were to come to America and protest against the second amendment, do you think they would be looked kindly upon? 'cause there was that whole movement to get Piers Morgan deported back to the UK for his views and all.

I won't go look for what I've written before to copy/paste it or re-write the whole wall of text, so I'll summarize. Laws are entirely arbitrary. A law against slavery is no more moral or just than a law against littering. Ancient Romans? Slavery and public executions were a-okay, and they worked fine as a society. Therefore, all laws are Just and should be adhered to, as that is the basis of the social contract. You're free to argue against it in most societies, but breaking the law in order to protest a law should (and does in many cases) invalidate your opinion on the matter.

Kopikatsu:

Dijkstra:

Can you prove that I am being stubborn and have shown complete intolerance? Or are you just using a popular, but utterly worthless, tactic of trying to claim whoever said something is bigoted is being bigoted? Because that's not how it works.

There is nothing bigoted about disapproving of their laws. There is nothing bigoted about now showing all of their laws respect.

Also, prove that just because they believe it is wrong it therefore is. Sorry, but that sounds like BS.

Lastly, you're making yourself look bad by trying to say that they were being told they had to accept it when no such thing happened. Defending bigotry is bad enough, but then trying to make the opposition look bad by manufacturing crap like that? Geez.

Well, yes. Inquery: Under what circumstances would you accept gay lifestyle/couples not being recognized as valid by any nation (But especially one that is founded on a particular religion)? If the answer is 'none', then that fits both criteria.

Bigotry is not saying "I don't think this is acceptable regardless of circumstances". That is not being stubborn and intolerant. It would be if I ignored all arguments for it. You're showing that you're ignorant of the word you're trying to use. There is nothing stubborn or intolerant about saying "Never" anymore than answering the question "Under what circumstances is it okay to torture all the Christians in the world?" with "Never". Or are you bigoted for not seeing a good circumstances that all Christians should be tortured under? Or do you see one? Hmm? There is nothing stubborn about just saying "None" when you've given no good argument, just a stupid question.

There is something bigoted about foreigners protesting laws in another state, yes. If people from the UK were to come to America and protest against the second amendment, do you think they would be looked kindly upon? 'cause there was that whole movement to get Piers Morgan deported back to the UK for his views and all.

It doesn't matter if it'd be looked upon kindly or not. You seem to have some pretty ridiculous ideas for what makes something bigoted. The fact that people would not look on it kindly does not magically make it bigoted. I wouldn't give a fuck. And I think it's stupid people would try to get him deported for that.

You need a better grasp on what makes something a fact.

I won't go look for what I've written before to copy/paste it or re-write the whole wall of text, so I'll summarize. Laws are entirely arbitrary. A law against slavery is no more moral or just than a law against littering.

Prove it isn't.

[quote[
Ancient Romans? Slavery and public executions were a-okay, and they worked fine as a society. Therefore, all laws are Just and should be adhered to, as that is the basis of the social contract.
[/quote]

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because it 'worked fine' it's just and should be adhered to. Further you have failed to define 'worked fine'. And social contract is a BS justification. It doesn't exist, it's a concept to make people feel happy about the fact they're imposing on others without their consent. Something I do not see as necessarily bad.

You're free to argue against it in most societies, but breaking the law in order to protest a law should (and does in many cases) invalidate your opinion on the matter.

Should based on no rule of logic, just your bad arguments.

Kopikatsu:

Going by the dictionary definition, you're being a bigot as well as you don't accept that Vatican City has a right to enforce the laws that it's ruling body feels appropriate. Laws tend to be based off the morals of the society in question. For Vatican City, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and so it is. Personally, I think it's wrong to tell them that they must accept it if they do not wish to. Also note that the protestors are from Ukraine, not VC.

The problem is the rules of Vatican city do not stay in Vatican city. There are what, a billion Catholics? Everything the Pope says gets carried around the world and spreads intolerance and bigotry. It's not like Obama saying Gays should be allowed to adopt would alter the way people in France view gay adoption (Just note I have no idea what the French view is, it's just an example) - the pope is more than a head of state, he is the head of a religion and as such has incredible influence that extends far beyond the borders of VC.

The rules inside the Vatican can be whatever they want but they should keep their mouths shut when talking to the world because they're voice carries incredible weight that affects us all. Obama can't tell people in other countries how to think on issues so why should the pope?

Karma168:
-stuff-

I'm pretty much seeing stubbornness and intolerance all over that. I'll give you an example;

I won't go look for what I've written before to copy/paste it or re-write the whole wall of text, so I'll summarize. Laws are entirely arbitrary. A law against slavery is no more moral or just than a law against littering.

Prove it isn't.

Prove that it is. I can give you numerous examples of nations that have run perfectly well with slavery, and I can also list a vast number of reasons why slavery is beneficial to the nation and society as a whole (when handled properly. IE not the way Sparta did). The only argument against slavery is on moral grounds (Unless you're the Spartans), which is the exact same justification that Vatican City is using to say that homosexuals cannot adopt, and one that you're opposed against.

Also, I'm not sure how you can call the Social Contract 'BS'. If you break the laws of a nation while within it's borders, are you not subject to their law? Are you not punished for your transgressions? Are you not expected to follow the law if you do not wish to suffer reprimand? Do you think that anarchy would be a reasonable system of handling things? Because all laws are, at their core, someone imposing their will on others.

Kopikatsu:

I won't go look for what I've written before to copy/paste it or re-write the whole wall of text, so I'll summarize. Laws are entirely arbitrary. A law against slavery is no more moral or just than a law against littering.

Prove it isn't.

Prove that it is.

You said it isn't so prove it.

I can give you numerous examples of nations that have run perfectly well with slavery, and I can also list a vast number of reasons why slavery is beneficial to the nation and society as a whole (when handled properly. IE not the way Sparta did). The only argument against slavery is on moral grounds (Unless you're the Spartans), which is the exact same justification that Vatican City is using to say that homosexuals cannot adopt, and one that you're opposed against.

Perfectly well does not automatically say anything about its relative morality as a law. Furthermore, just saying "They're both on moral grounds" means nothing. So what?

I'll also note that just talking big and saying that it is beneficial does not mean it is. So even that is in question.

Also, I'm not sure how you can call the Social Contract 'BS'. If you break the laws of a nation while within it's borders, are you not subject to their law?

Being subject to it by force does not have any impact on whether social contract is anything but BS.

Are you not punished for your transgressions?

Again, same as above. Whether it's a social contract or merely someone running around being the strongest and forcing you to listen both of the two things mentioned would hold.

Are you not expected to follow the law if you do not wish to suffer reprimand?

Are you not able to actually support the idea of a social contract with things that actually prove it? Because what you've listed has proven nothing. Do you even know what the idea of a social contract is? Because all the things you listed can exist regardless of the legitimacy of an authority.

Do you think that anarchy would be a reasonable system of handling things?

Irrelevant. Whether I think is is reasonable or not does not make a social contract not BS.

Because all laws are, at their core, someone imposing their will on others.

So what? That does nothing to support the idea of a social contract.

I'm sure Gay Marriage is a big issue within Vatican City, the only Christian Theocracy I can think of off the top of my head, with it's massive population of 832 people (2011).

Now admittedly, the pope has a lot of sway and influence on certain individuals, and I think that's whats being protested more then Vatican cities policies itself. But the way we deliver a message is sometimes as important as the message itself.

And I'm happy to see homosexuals being allowed to marry in America, which is not a theocracy. In the U.S. marriage under the law is a purely secular affair, a legal contract. But I'm sure in Vatican city it's far more then that. So it would make sense for them to be governed by their religious doctrines.

I suppose I just don't understand the point in this protest at this place at this time.

I'm also not going to say marriage is a universal right. It's not.

subject matter aside your post would have been so much better without the last bit:

Kopikatsu:
"WE'RE SHOWING THAT WE'RE REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE BY BREAKING SEVERAL LAWS. POWER TO THE PEOPLE."

the ability to break "the law" is actually a form of freedom.

you look at the pivotal events of political history (the Boston tea party being a prime example as are all revolutions) and what you'll find is people breaking "the law" as it currently stands.

there is a quote from one of the enlightenment thinkers, i forget which one exactly but my head is suggesting it was possibly Benjamin Franklin, that goes along the lines of "when law is absolute there is no freedom.".

or in other words if you cannot step out of line you don't actually have the capacity to change where the line is...

"civil disobedience" or whatever you want to call it...is a strange thing...

on the one hand you think this event is stupid.

on the other a bunch of folks painting their faces and dressing up as natives while committing a criminal act of vandalism is held up as one of the greatest episodes in American history...

Kopikatsu:

Dijkstra:

Can you prove that I am being stubborn and have shown complete intolerance? Or are you just using a popular, but utterly worthless, tactic of trying to claim whoever said something is bigoted is being bigoted? Because that's not how it works.

There is nothing bigoted about disapproving of their laws. There is nothing bigoted about now showing all of their laws respect.

Also, prove that just because they believe it is wrong it therefore is. Sorry, but that sounds like BS.

Lastly, you're making yourself look bad by trying to say that they were being told they had to accept it when no such thing happened. Defending bigotry is bad enough, but then trying to make the opposition look bad by manufacturing crap like that? Geez.

Well, yes. Inquery: Under what circumstances would you accept gay lifestyle/couples not being recognized as valid by any nation (But especially one that is founded on a particular religion)? If the answer is 'none', then that fits both criteria.

There is something bigoted about foreigners protesting laws in another state, yes. If people from the UK were to come to America and protest against the second amendment, do you think they would be looked kindly upon? 'cause there was that whole movement to get Piers Morgan deported back to the UK for his views and all.

I won't go look for what I've written before to copy/paste it or re-write the whole wall of text, so I'll summarize. Laws are entirely arbitrary. A law against slavery is no more moral or just than a law against littering. Ancient Romans? Slavery and public executions were a-okay, and they worked fine as a society. Therefore, all laws are Just and should be adhered to, as that is the basis of the social contract. You're free to argue against it in most societies, but breaking the law in order to protest a law should (and does in many cases) invalidate your opinion on the matter.

It's called civil disobedience, guy. Apparently all of Gandhi's opinions should be invalidated because he broke some laws.

Kopikatsu:

Dijkstra:
I'd say the t-shirt pulling was to offend those who want to deny gay adoption. That kind of bigotry tends to correlate with a stronger reaction against people running around nude I think, due to a common source in their religion...

And the problem with how the Vatican views it is not that people do not have an inherent right to children, it's that they're being bigoted in how they would like to distribute that privilege. And personally I don't care about laws being broken when it's pretty harmless, particularly for protesting something more socially harmful.

bigotry

noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Going by the dictionary definition, you're being a bigot as well as you don't accept that Vatican City has a right to enforce the laws that it's ruling body feels appropriate. Laws tend to be based off the morals of the society in question. For Vatican City, they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and so it is. Personally, I think it's wrong to tell them that they must accept it if they do not wish to. Also note that the protestors are from Ukraine, not VC.

Relativist trash. By this standard, literally every action is permissible if you can get a majority to agree, and I hate to go there, but by your standard the Holocaust is justifiable. Note, I am not comparing denying gays rights granted to everyone else to the slaughter of millions, just illustrating how absurd your argument is.

As for bigotry, it is a common tactic of people accused of, or who support bigotry to try and equate justifiable censure of bigoted behaviour with that behaviour; it is not bigotry to condemn bigotry, nor is it intolerant to condemn intolerance.

Because those who oppose nudity the strongest are usually the same group who oppose homosexuals having the right to adopt.

The pope is also supposed to be chaste, so naked women would be a cherry on top when it comes to getting his attention.

They probably do that for exactly the reason we are discussing it here now: it attracts media attention.

Now stop watchin tah boobies!

Oh my, look at that policeman. Somebody has photoshopped the head of GTA IV's Nico Bellic in!

Frankly, I don't care what any religious group wants or think it needs. As long as we have the separation of church and state, they can't enforce their views on the rest. So yeah, the pope thinks being gay is bad. Good for him. He also doesn't make the law in Belgium.

Magichead:

Relativist trash. By this standard, literally every action is permissible if you can get a majority to agree, and I hate to go there, but by your standard the Holocaust is justifiable.

Uhm, yes, actually, it is. Morality is not absolute, but defined by culture. To the nazi's, the Holocaust was entirely justified. To the Romans, slavery was a completely normal practice.
But note that we're not the Nazi's nor living in the ancient Roman Empire, as our sense of justice has evolved to view genocide, exclusion, gaybashing, slavery, etc etc as wrong.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think that somehow your morality and opinions are objective and absolute? Are you that one guy that gets to arbitrate what jokes are funny and not?

Kopikatsu:

I don't get the connection between throwing your clothes off and adoption by gay parents.

You don't need to. It's a feminist group, they don't use logic.

Mostly as a publicity stunt, I'd guess. Something to do with "empowerment" and "baring your true self", and it seems to have become the go-to form of protest for feminists (think Slut Walks), PETA, and now gay rights.

You'll notice it's only a cool and media-friendly form of protest when women do it, though. If a man decided to walk bollock-naked into a Synagogue to protest Japanese whaling (or whatever) he'd be beaten, locked up and put on a sex offenders' register.

You know, if anti gay positions make women go topless i think i might just start being against gay marriage >:)

On a more serious note, it was probably done in order to shock and as such grab attention.

TheBelgianGuy:

Uhm, yes, actually, it is. Morality is not absolute, but defined by culture. To the nazi's, the Holocaust was entirely justified. To the Romans, slavery was a completely normal practice.
But note that we're not the Nazi's nor living in the ancient Roman Empire, as our sense of justice has evolved to view genocide, exclusion, gaybashing, slavery, etc etc as wrong.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think that somehow your morality and opinions are objective and absolute? Are you that one guy that gets to arbitrate what jokes are funny and not?

Just because these people held that opinion doesn't automatically make it a valid point of view. If the basis for these beliefs are themselves flawed, that makes said beliefs themselves wrong. In the case of the Nazis, they were using those they persecuted as scapegoats, seeing them as lesser humans without any evidence. If they had some legitimate, non-manufactured proof that these claims were true, then it would become a matter of whether revenge or Darwinism are morally justified. As it stands, though, no such evidence has been found.

TheBelgianGuy:

Uhm, yes, actually, it is. Morality is not absolute, but defined by culture. To the nazi's, the Holocaust was entirely justified. To the Romans, slavery was a completely normal practice.
But note that we're not the Nazi's nor living in the ancient Roman Empire, as our sense of justice has evolved to view genocide, exclusion, gaybashing, slavery, etc etc as wrong.

Personal morality is defined by culture, nothing more. That is descriptive. Kopikatsu misuses it on a way that suggests that it actually is morally correct as opposed to merely a description. Don't misuse moral relativism like some people do and mistake it for some kind of truth about what is or is not moral, as opposed to merely a description of what people find moral.

Dijkstra:

Kopikatsu:

Prove it isn't.

Prove that it is.

You said it isn't so prove it.

You can't prove a negative. You made a claim, so you have to provide proof of that claim. He doesn't have to provide proof of you being wrong. That is, until you've actually given proof of your claim. Proper proof that is. Then the burden of proof does shift to him to disprove your proof.

sanquin:

Dijkstra:

Kopikatsu:

Prove that it is.

You said it isn't so prove it.

You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can. To prove a positive is to prove a negative as well, if you bothered to think it through instead of passing around an idea some people apparently say but never think about critically.

Furthermore, you just made a statement that you believe to be unprovable as it is a negative. Why should I believe it? Why do you?

Lastly, learn some higher math.

You made a claim, so you have to provide proof of that claim. He doesn't have to provide proof of you being wrong.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to interject can you at least fucking read what was written? Because I didn't make the initial claim.

That is, until you've actually given proof of your claim. Proper proof that is. Then the burden of proof does shift to him to disprove your proof.

Can you please prove that you actually read what you comment on next time?

Dijkstra:

TheBelgianGuy:

Uhm, yes, actually, it is. Morality is not absolute, but defined by culture. To the nazi's, the Holocaust was entirely justified. To the Romans, slavery was a completely normal practice.
But note that we're not the Nazi's nor living in the ancient Roman Empire, as our sense of justice has evolved to view genocide, exclusion, gaybashing, slavery, etc etc as wrong.

Personal morality is defined by culture, nothing more. That is descriptive. Kopikatsu misuses it on a way that suggests that it actually is morally correct as opposed to merely a description. Don't misuse moral relativism like some people do and mistake it for some kind of truth about what is or is not moral, as opposed to merely a description of what people find moral.

What is considered ethical is based entirely off the morals of the majority of the society in question. The Holocaust was moral...for Nazi Germany; but not, say, the UK. That does make it correct, in the same way that holding a belief (about reality) that conflicts with the majority of society makes your belief delusional. If you were a Christian that lived in Saudi Arabia, you would be delusional, but if you lived in, say, the US, you would not be. Morals work the same way.

Dijkstra:

sanquin:

Dijkstra:

You said it isn't so prove it.

You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can. To prove a positive is to prove a negative as well, if you bothered to think it through instead of passing around an idea some people apparently say but never think about critically.

Furthermore, you just made a statement that you believe to be unprovable as it is a negative. Why should I believe it? Why do you?

Lastly, learn some higher math.

I can kind of see why your forum health meter is so high (low?). Anywho...

You actually can't prove a negative. Example; I say that black cats do not exist. This is a negative argument, because it is opposing a particular position. If you were to counter-argue that black cats do exist, that would be a positive argument because it is supporting a particular position. I could produce a million cats of various non-black colors as proof of my stance, but if you produce a single black cat, then your position is supported and mine is not. It's not possible to not produce a black cat and then use that as proof of it's non-existence. That's not how logic works.

Kopikatsu:

Dijkstra:

TheBelgianGuy:

Uhm, yes, actually, it is. Morality is not absolute, but defined by culture. To the nazi's, the Holocaust was entirely justified. To the Romans, slavery was a completely normal practice.
But note that we're not the Nazi's nor living in the ancient Roman Empire, as our sense of justice has evolved to view genocide, exclusion, gaybashing, slavery, etc etc as wrong.

Personal morality is defined by culture, nothing more. That is descriptive. Kopikatsu misuses it on a way that suggests that it actually is morally correct as opposed to merely a description. Don't misuse moral relativism like some people do and mistake it for some kind of truth about what is or is not moral, as opposed to merely a description of what people find moral.

What is considered ethical is based entirely off the morals of the majority of the society in question.

Yes, hold on that word considered and try not to lose it by jumping to is.

The Holocaust was moral...for Nazi Germany; but not, say, the UK.

Nope. to. Nothing you said proves that it was moral. They considered it moral. Nothing says that makes it moral.

That does make it correct, in the same way that holding a belief (about reality) that conflicts with the majority of society makes your belief delusional.

Prove that it makes it correct. Let's see where you prove that's what morality actually is and not merely your overly convoluted and self-contradicting belief or something. That also does not make a belief delusional.

If you were a Christian that lived in Saudi Arabia, you would be delusional, but if you lived in, say, the US, you would not be. Morals work the same way.

Prove it. I'm not interested in you just making claims out of nowhere.

Dijkstra:

sanquin:

You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can. To prove a positive is to prove a negative as well, if you bothered to think it through instead of passing around an idea some people apparently say but never think about critically.

Furthermore, you just made a statement that you believe to be unprovable as it is a negative. Why should I believe it? Why do you?

Lastly, learn some higher math.

I can kind of see why your forum health meter is so high (low?). Anywho...

You actually can't prove a negative. Example; I say that black cats do not exist. This is a negative argument, because it is opposing a particular position. If you were to counter-argue that black cats do exist, that would be a positive argument because it is supporting a particular position. I could produce a million cats of various non-black colors as proof of my stance, but if you produce a single black cat, then your position is supported and mine is not. It's not possible to not produce a black cat and then use that as proof of it's non-existence. That's not how logic works.

Yes, you can prove a negative. Example, I provide a black cat. I have proven the statement "There are not only white cats" true. I could also go on to prove that the statement "8 is not divisible by 7" is true, I could prove that "Romney is not President" is true, the list goes on and on. Maybe you should stop talking about how logic works when you apparently lack any kind of knowledge concerning it?

And seriously... you tried to give one example and you think that proves a rule? Here's something very basic.
To prove a statement about ALL things, a single example is not sufficient. A single counterexample is sufficient to prove it wrong, but a single example is not enough to prove it right. You just tried to provide a single example to support a claim that encompasses all negative statements. That is hilariously bad logic.

And really what the hell is up with people who like to say that negative are impossible to prove not being able to realize they just are trying to make a statement they themselves said they cannot possibly know to be true... is true.

guys moral objectivity/subjectivity is not the topic of the thread and has been done to death in others.

and ps the nazis knew what they were doing was wrong as evidenced by the fact they fully intended to keep the holocaust secret from the public even if they won the war.

sanquin:

Dijkstra:
-Snip-

Argument aside, great way to show that you're a dick with that post. Grow up will ya?

Your post seems rather... hypocritical to say the least.

But anyway, do you really not expect criticism when you didn't even bother to see who made the initial claim before declaring I'm shifting the burden of proof? Honestly, I'd say the more mature thing for you to do would be to own up to your mistakes. Yet... you criticize me and tell me to grow up?

Dijkstra:
Yes, you can prove a negative. Example, I provide a black cat. I have proven the statement "There are not only white cats" true. I could also go on to prove that the statement "8 is not divisible by 7" is true, I could prove that "Romney is not President" is true, the list goes on and on. Maybe you should stop talking about how logic works when you apparently lack any kind of knowledge concerning it?

There's a difference between a negative statement and a positive statement reworded to sound like a negative one...

sanquin:

Dijkstra:
Yes, you can prove a negative. Example, I provide a black cat. I have proven the statement "There are not only white cats" true. I could also go on to prove that the statement "8 is not divisible by 7" is true, I could prove that "Romney is not President" is true, the list goes on and on. Maybe you should stop talking about how logic works when you apparently lack any kind of knowledge concerning it?

There's a difference between a negative statement and a positive statement reworded to sound like a negative one...

Logically? Nope, there is no difference.

And you never answered why you believe the statement "You cannot prove a negative" when you believe it is impossible to prove that statement.

Dijkstra:
Logically? Nope, there is no difference.

And you never answered why you believe the statement "You cannot prove a negative" when you believe it is impossible to prove that statement.

Damn I must be tired...after rereading and thinking about it a little more I realize I should have worded it a little differently. "You cannot prove an existential negative." And in the case of what I replied to, it doesn't seem to apply. Not sure...as I said, tired. That being said, in the original argument two sides both going 'No you come with the proof first!' isn't really doing anything... It looks more like both sides should come with whatever proof they have for their side.

Dijkstra:

Logically? Nope, there is no difference.

Just preemptively, to make sure that "negation" and "negative statement" aren't being confused here. One is a logical operation, and the other is an actual statement.

¬A doesn't mean a negative statement, it means the negation of statement A.

Though, I will point out that "You can't prove a negative" is, indeed, inaccurate.

"You can't prove non-existence" is what people should be saying.

The thing with negative statements is that the burden of proof does not start on them, it's only shifted after the positive counter-statement is supported.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked