10 ms·

Given almost half of American households have dogs these days, and how they're generally treated as family members, the burden of proof falls on you here, and 3

Given almost half of American households have dogs these days, and how they're generally treated as family members, the burden of proof falls on you here, and 3 sentences made up 1 minute before you wrote a forum comment doesn't cover it. That is, if you want to argue about it. Look, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH and what's not. I am suggesting that the fact that there is a petition with thousands of signatories indicates interest, and the facts I cited support it. Your opinions lack sufficient foundation to support anything.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
No, I don't think the burden of proof falls on me at all. Especially given all you've presented to support your claim are random bare assertions that don't prove the claim. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, which in this case is the petition organizer, or perhaps you. And as we've already examined, we have no way of knowing how representative the petition is. So a poll might be your best option, and sophism in an internet comment probably isn't. That is, if you want to argue about it. Like I already said, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH or not, but two things are for sure: a petition signed by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the population, isn't a good indicator of popular support; and a good poll might be. I mean, let's be serious and honest with ourselves: "thousands" self-selected out of hundreds of millions, billions perhaps (not sure how the survey screened for people out of the country), is nothing. Nothing. It's an emotionally appealing number which is literally within the margin of error. There are thousands who think we should research how earth is flat. There are thousands who believe we should research young-earth creationism. "Thousands" is _nothing_. If all you can get to support your cause, out of hundreds of millions, is "thousands", your cause probably isn't that great, and/or your PR probably isn't that great. 3 million, still less than 1% of the population, would be a better starting point for an "indication" of what they support. "Thousands" is embarrassing.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

No, I don't think the burden of proof falls on me at all. Especially given all you've presented to support your claim are random bare assertions that don't prove the claim. Indeed, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, which in this case is the petition organizer, or perhaps you. And as we've already examined, we have no way of knowing how representative the petition is. So a poll might be your best option, and sophism in an internet comment probably isn't. That is, if you want to argue about it. Like I already said, I'm not suggesting the government poll to find out what's popular at NIH or not, but two things are for sure: a petition signed by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the population, isn't a good indicator of popular support; and a good poll might be. I mean, let's be serious and honest with ourselves: "thousands" self-selected out of hundreds of millions, billions perhaps (not sure how the survey screened for people out of the country), is nothing. Nothing. It's an emotionally appealing number which is literally within the margin of error. There are thousands who think we should research how earth is flat. There are thousands who believe we should research young-earth creationism. "Thousands" is _nothing_. If all you can get to support your cause, out of hundreds of millions, is "thousands", your cause probably isn't that great, and/or your PR probably isn't that great. 3 million, still less than 1% of the population, would be a better starting point for an "indication" of what they support. "Thousands" is embarrassing.