Can you explain how your statement is not equivalent to “this factual question can be answered by counting the number of supporters of each answer”? Even using “witnesses” instead of people, the underlying principle remains that of counting people. Viz, democracy.
Because the amount of support you have depends on popular opinion, but the amount of evidence there is depends on the the number of facts and their signficance in terms of the underlying proposition, i.e. that deity exists.
Also, there's more to democracy than just weight of numbers.
This is also the third thread he’s tried to drag this increasingly irrelevant troll on to. If people could just go on not engaging, that’d be great.
I ws bnnd frm Th Stndrd fr tlkng bt ths. Smlr cntxt t, tlkng bt hw sttt lw s nt th lw f th lnd.
Unfortunately I hit the paywall for "Baron Parke Rises From the Dead".
The thing that I really like about the golden rule is that it refutes the mantra that statute law overrides common law. Also, as can be seen from his history, Parke didn't approve of parliament fucking with the common law.
After musing the etymological fallacy, I'm of the opinion that it's of more value as a smokescreen for inconvenient truths. Take "nice" for example - "she's a nice girl", or "he's a nice guy". The thing that sets nice guys apart from good guys is that good guys are true to their values while nice guys get pushed around by bad guys whe know that they're only placaters. The etymology of "nice" gives us a clue:
late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (see un-) + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c.1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830).
Calling older definitions of words “true” and newer understandings of the meanings of those words “hollow” then muttering about redefinitions as attempts to promote -isms really is just the etymological fallacy.
"Muttering about -isms" LOL
Attempting to redefine language can be a form of fraud. This issue is addresed by the doctrine of contra proferentem and by the golden rule of statutory interpretation (Baron Parke's rule). The hollow meaning of a secular oaths is rejected because of the repugnance of hypocrisy.
"Was the High Court able to consider Cameron Slater’s leaked mailbox in this decision?"
Not unless it was introduced as evidence by either side.
This is a good examnple of how the NZ legal system fails. At common law the jury is responisble for findings of fact, and originally this included investigation, not just relying on evidence from the contesting parties.
If the established news organisations aren’t up to the task then who?
Alternative media, particularly specialist commentators.
All media outlets have some kind of bias, it comes back to individual responsibility in applying due diligence for finding reliable sources.
But it still doesn’t address the other most important thrust of Moz, which was obvious from the tone when he laughed at you for saying your God’s existence is democratic
I never said that.
1. You can’t logically or empirically PROVE a generalized negative existence claim.
Irrelevant, it doesn’t change the fact that the there is no available evidence against the proposition that deity exists. Either deity exists or it doesn't, there are no other rational positions to take.
“Yeah, so what? There’s no argument of substance there.”
FFS, that’s because you just cherry picked the argument off it.
No, I didn’t cherry pick anything, there wasn’t any alternative line of reasoning. A wall of words based on fictions, assumptions, and irrelevances is not an actual argument.
You’re showing no signs of having worked your assignment. I’m disappointed.
" it is more rational to believe that deity exists than not because evidence exists that supports such existence, but no evidence to the contrary has been shown."
One question- if this ludicrous proposition were true...
Logical propositions are not ludicrous. If it were illogical then you shoulde be able to identify a fallacy.