![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/24b5a66c-cb48-46e3-8306-8252dc8e4bbc.jpeg)
non-nutritious
It has carbs, what more could you need?
/s
dig a little deeper beyond what gets radio play and you can find some good shit.
Don’t leave us hanging! What are your suggestions?
Believing claims on the grounds that they haven’t been disproven is just bad epistemology
Well, it’s a good thing that wasn’t my position.
If you’re claiming my fridge has no tiny invisible pink elephants you are welcome to provide evidence.
I will make no claims on the matter and thus have to provide no evidence either way.
Edit: I think you’re confusing me for the other guy.
“There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.
Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
Negative claims require evidence.
Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say “There are no structural issues with this building.” He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.
Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me. 😜
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
Science, philosophy, and mathematics say otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
I wasn’t arguing for the existence of god.
Let me break this down:
that’s not how evidence and proof works.
Proof of a negative is common in science and mathematics.
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
Edit: For those who are downvoting here are some sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
No. A negative can be proven. It’s done all the time in science and mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
You have made the assertion, thus you have the burden of proof.
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” QED
Careful, many online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. That they have to prove the assertion: “There is no god.”
The default position is that there is yet insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
Edit: Thank you for the downvotes, you have provided me with further evidence that online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. Your butthurt fuels me.
Focus on being trustworthy more than your performance.
I recently saw a video from Simon Sinek that helped me understand what is valued in a team member. It’s only 2 and a half minutes long, give it a watch.
can you post the slides in chat after?
Can you post the highlights in chat after?
Give it time.
Victorian England is responsible for most of our annoying modesty rules.
Yeah, it’s why people still avoid showing any skin at all, why women still wear corsets, and why we still wear ridiculously large hats.
And then we just never changed from then.
“How about a rap song? Kids love that rap stuff.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMk8wuw7nek
“Boss, Isn’t that song just a list of the Pokémon names? Are we even trying?”