3 ms·

The burden of proof applies to those who's liberties are infringed. If my rights are being stripped, the burden of proof should not be that I need to prove the

The burden of proof applies to those who's liberties are infringed. If my rights are being stripped, the burden of proof should not be that I need to prove the NSA is infringing those liberties, it should be that they need to prove that they aren't. With National Security Letters, the recipients can't even acknowledge that they've received them, and with the FISA court, we have no way to know.

dylangs1030 13y ago
You missed the point. In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. Example: "Prove there isn't an invisble ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." What I was saying is a general rule that's valid across every subject in logical debate, and it is valid as a response for the sentence I quoted. What you're saying isn't a rebuttal to my point.
- haliax 13y ago
  I have to take issue with the point about negative statements, surely it's no more fruitful to say "Prove there IS an invisible ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's fruitless to place the burden of proof on a statement which is syllogistically isolated from any statement known to be true?
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    No, it is more fruiful to say, "Prove there is..." because that's the basis of scientific/mathematical rigor. If you can prove it exists, it does. If you can't prove it exists, it doesn't, for all intents and purposes. You then act as though it doesn't, because until you can find evidence for it, it might as well be nonexistent, and you should act that way to be logical.
- chinpokomon 13y ago
  My point wasn't about proving a negative. More to the point there is no oversight so we don't know how bad it really is. I'm calling for some sort of protective measures and putting an end to this nonsense. The current administration is taking an ends justify the means attitude, not that they are probably the first to do so, but after being caught in lie after lie they aren't to be trusted either.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  > In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. That's unnecessary. We've already seen, via the leaks, that dragnet surveillance is happening. The NSA's claim that domestic communications are sacrosanct are put to lie by the revelations that the DEA and IRS are both using laundered NSA domestic surveillance data. We're now well beyond the need to prove that the government is in a state of sin with regard to the Constitution. The issue now is what remedies we'll pursue.

dylangs1030 13y ago

You missed the point. In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. Example: "Prove there isn't an invisble ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." What I was saying is a general rule that's valid across every subject in logical debate, and it is valid as a response for the sentence I quoted. What you're saying isn't a rebuttal to my point.

haliax 13y ago
I have to take issue with the point about negative statements, surely it's no more fruitful to say "Prove there IS an invisible ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's fruitless to place the burden of proof on a statement which is syllogistically isolated from any statement known to be true?
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  No, it is more fruiful to say, "Prove there is..." because that's the basis of scientific/mathematical rigor. If you can prove it exists, it does. If you can't prove it exists, it doesn't, for all intents and purposes. You then act as though it doesn't, because until you can find evidence for it, it might as well be nonexistent, and you should act that way to be logical.
chinpokomon 13y ago
My point wasn't about proving a negative. More to the point there is no oversight so we don't know how bad it really is. I'm calling for some sort of protective measures and putting an end to this nonsense. The current administration is taking an ends justify the means attitude, not that they are probably the first to do so, but after being caught in lie after lie they aren't to be trusted either.
mullingitover 13y ago
> In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. That's unnecessary. We've already seen, via the leaks, that dragnet surveillance is happening. The NSA's claim that domestic communications are sacrosanct are put to lie by the revelations that the DEA and IRS are both using laundered NSA domestic surveillance data. We're now well beyond the need to prove that the government is in a state of sin with regard to the Constitution. The issue now is what remedies we'll pursue.