4 ms·
You're right, yours is a very shallow argument. Unless you can reveal anything about the inner workings of the tenure board, you are taking your impression of
by primax 3y ago
You're right, yours is a very shallow argument.
Unless you can reveal anything about the inner workings of the tenure board, you are taking your impression of a broad organisation and applying it to a specific department, a management structure and a board for which you are ignorant.
Please don't make sweeping generalisations and minimise the position of the author unless you have actual knowledge that might let you walk in his shoes.
- moralestapia 3y agoIf we are being pedantic, the burden of proof does not lie on me. I didn't publish AND promote a blog post where I feared not getting my current job because of some social dynamic that happens to exist 12,500km from where I am right now. You should ask OP to provide evidence of caste discrimination in Canada, at this particular University.
- tremon 3y agoYou: > I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election/non-election Also you: > the burden of proof does not lie on me You made very strong claims in your opening post. Asking you to provide some proof to support those claims is perfectly valid.
- moralestapia 3y agoRead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) >In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. >(emphasis) while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct >The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. In case it's not clear, I'm not OP, I did not write TFA.
- jcparkyn 3y agoBut you are also making your own claim, by asserting with absolute confidence that caste-based discrimination doesn't exist. If you were just questioning the reasoning of the author, then sure, the burden of proof would be with them. Also, this is not a courtroom.
- moralestapia 3y ago>(emphasis) while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct Posting this sentence for the third time. I am on the "presumably correct" side. >Also, this is not a courtroom. Why is that important?
- jcparkyn 3y agoYou completely missed my point. You aren't "the other party" once you start making claims of your own. "I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election..." If your argument was just "there's not enough evidence to conclude that..." then I would agree with you. > Why is that important? Because you're trying to apply a convention from the context of legal disputes to something that isn't a legal dispute. Do you also ask HN commenters to go through a discovery process?
- moralestapia 3y agoThere's a lot to say but it can be summarized as: you cannot appeal to, and simultaneously ignore, the burden of proof. Following your really weird strawman, if we are not in a courtroom, why is it important? X2 Make up your mind, man.