Comments by "Cupid Stunt" (@Cupid-Stunt) on "Kilmeade: What happened to the Democrat Party?" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please excuse me Paul if I am out of order?
For Travis.Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to:
Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof
Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl
Modus tollens, a logical proof
Proof of impossibility, mathematics
Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
1
-
1
-
@mrbasshole301 I meant what I said, what you take from that once it hss been filtered by that dysfunctional thing on your shoulders, I will never know how, or why that works.
As a favour to you 11,780 is my chosen ONE example. Enough will have been said when I choose not you Trumptard.
Otherwise
Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to:
Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof
Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl
Modus tollens, a logical proof
Proof of impossibility, mathematics
Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrbasshole301 You got a pair, congratulations.
1. Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to:
Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof
Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl
Modus tollens, a logical proof
Proof of impossibility, mathematics
Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
2. Ad hominem
Fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the character, motive etc. of the person(s) associated with the argument
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewdicroce166 In 5 years you will not have a military without additional oil imports. Gonna sail to the South China Sea and throw rocks?
U.S. Energy Information Administration ---
US proven oil reserves account for 2.1% of the world's total oil reserves
US proven oil reserves 2019 --- 47,000,000,000 barrels (proven is currently acceptable notation)
US proven oil reserves 2020 --- 38,600,000,000 barrels
US proven oil reserves 2019-2020 --- decreased 8,400,000,000 barrels (-19%)
US daily oil usage --- 20,000,000 barrels
US annual oil usage --- 7,300,000,000 barrels
YOU HAVE 5 YEARS OF OIL INDEPENDENCE?
FYI - I would welcome corrections if the following contains errors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1