Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5587258" data-attributes="member: 18280">The burden of proof is equal on both sides.Whether a statement is an affirmative or a negative depends largely on framing, rather than content.&nbsp; &quot;There is no difference&quot; is as affirmative of a statement as &quot;There is a difference&quot;.&nbsp; By choosing framing, and by claiming that the burden lies on one particular type of framing, one can easily dodge the burden of proof on any question, while claiming that the &quot;other side&quot; must meet said burden.&nbsp; I would be very, very wary of this sort of wordplay, as you will see it often over the course of your life.&nbsp; Those who engage in it might do so innocently.&nbsp; Sometimes, though, they know exactly what they are doing.Burden of proof relates not to position held, but to your desire to &quot;prove&quot; your position to someone who does not hold it.&nbsp; Literally, the other person decides at what threshold you have met your burden, therefore convincing that person.In some specific cases, such as law, a decision must be made on which side to err, when burden of proof cannot be met.&nbsp; Thus, for example, you are &quot;innocent until proven guilty&quot; in North America, because of a general belief that it is better to let the guilty go unpunished than to punish the innocent.In my own attempt at creating a &quot;perfect game&quot; for my playstyle, I am working at blending new and old school elements, because I like some of each.&nbsp; I hardly think that &quot;blended&quot; games are unusual.....but that doesn't mean that the elements being blended do not exist.&nbsp; Or, at least, no more than the existence of purple means that red and blue don't exist.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5587258, member: 18280"] The burden of proof is equal on both sides. Whether a statement is an affirmative or a negative depends largely on framing, rather than content. "There is no difference" is as affirmative of a statement as "There is a difference". By choosing framing, and by claiming that the burden lies on one particular type of framing, one can easily dodge the burden of proof on any question, while claiming that the "other side" must meet said burden. I would be very, very wary of this sort of wordplay, as you will see it often over the course of your life. Those who engage in it might do so innocently. Sometimes, though, they know exactly what they are doing. Burden of proof relates not to position held, but to your desire to "prove" your position to someone who does not hold it. Literally, the other person decides at what threshold you have met your burden, therefore convincing that person. In some specific cases, such as law, a decision must be made on which side to err, when burden of proof cannot be met. Thus, for example, you are "innocent until proven guilty" in North America, because of a general belief that it is better to let the guilty go unpunished than to punish the innocent. In my own attempt at creating a "perfect game" for my playstyle, I am working at blending new and old school elements, because I like some of each. I hardly think that "blended" games are unusual.....but that doesn't mean that the elements being blended do not exist. Or, at least, no more than the existence of purple means that red and blue don't exist. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification