Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[The perfect fumble]

I don't know how to break this down in any simpler form for you.

If you make a claim, and an outlandish claim at that, it is up to you to provide a link or source or any evidence of any kind to back that up, otherwise it's just bullshit.

As an example I spent last night enjoying a threesome with Megan Fox and the doly bird off Countdown.

Prove I didnt.

I don't care, nor do I suspect there is evidence to prove it one way or another.

There is plenty of evidence of out of control bonuses, rampant executive pay, failed executives awarding themselves golden handshakes and share holder revolts over executive pay.

I don't have to prove the sun rises in the morning by the same token I don't have to prove the existence of excessive executive remuneration, it's for you to disprove it.

It is called refutation, your opponent makes a point (me) and you refute it, if you don't, it stands.

That is why when the Tories make a point, Labour refutes it, if they don't or the refutation is weak, then the Tory statement stands.

Then to make a claim that it's true is just bullshit.

And to your notion about not proving the sun rises in the morning, well no. But that's because it is freely available to be seen. But the reason why it rises and the theory of heliocentricity was proven, using evidence by Copernicus. You see, as I stated, that's the way it works.

But I suspect, judging by your last two paragraphs that you're just a fucking idiot.

Calling me a fucking idiot and refusing to debate the point, sums you up nicely.

If I'm such a fucking idiot then refute what I say, if you don't, or won't, or can't then that's on you.

 

[law74]

They may well be, and that is not imho for the betterment of society, but if they can poll anyway well, and use the next 5 years working with other like minded groupings, then I believe we can within ten years return a true Left government.

Seriously, mate. What planet are you on? Do you have any idea about the demographic make-up of this country?

As the internet continues to expand and people obtain and share experiences and information in differing ways, the power of the mexia and in particular an Australian tycoon will wain, leading to a change in politics and an end to the 2.5 party system we are currently stymied by.
This I believe will result in more participation in politics and a significant shift to the left.

 

[Lucky13]

Can any of the class warrior , politics of envy , point and tax , life's not fair types explain to me what it feels like hating people because they earn more money than you?

 

[The perfect fumble]

https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/583245560305598464

HaveIGotNewsForYou
‏@haveigotnews 100 millionaire bosses of large companies back Tories. Also, dogs show support for meaty bones and belly rubs.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Can any of the class warrior , politics of envy , point and tax , life's not fair types explain to me what it feels like hating people because they earn more money than you?

No. I'd look closer to home if you're looking to understand hate.

 

[shallyman]

In the last few election campaigns there has been a lot of pressure from people who believe that the Labour and Tory parties come from very different moral standpoints. Although, their manifestos are very similar in their aims. They will tell you about Thatcher and the privileged few who only prosper under a Tory government looking out for their pals, but the people sitting on the labour benches come from the same Oxbridge backgrounds!!

I watched the debate last week and was annoyed at the way that Miliband spoke about the previous Labour government like it was a distant blot on the landscape, almost like it happened in another country. Completely disassociating himself from any part of it, but I recall him and Balls backing up Gordon Brown's shambolic election campaign last time round. That went along the lines of "Yeah, things might be pretty shit now, but they were good for a while! Remember Thatcher!"

I don't really remember Thatcher, because I was just a child in the 80's, but I do remember people being offered 100% mortgages, for inflated house prices, then being in negative equity 6 months later. I do remember people having their houses repossessed. I do remember my last company going into administration and being made redundant. I remember Miliband, Balls and Harman in government.

I've never voted Tory, and I have no intention of voting for them, but some people have very short memories.

 

[Damocles]

Calling me a fucking idiot and refusing to debate the point, sums you up nicely.

If I'm such a fucking idiot then refute what I say, if you don't, or won't, or can't then that's on you.

To be honest mate, you're in the wrong here.

The way arguments are supposed to work are that somebody makes a claim that is relevant to the discussion, such as "apples are green". The other person if they don't accept that claim at face value then challenges the original person to provide a source, essentially to show where you learned this specific information. Then you provide a source and the person you're arguing against will then read it and either accept it as true or point out that the source says that "some apples are green" rather than "apples are green".
You strike that down as a point that you made a mistake on then think about if and how it reshapes your argument. Then continue to discussion.

What you have done is say "apples are green" and then when challenged to provide the source where you have learnt that, stated that it's actually somebody else's job to show that apples AREN'T green.

The problem with this is that research and studies aren't done in a negative slant; that is, you don't do research to determine if something is not true but instead do it to show that something is true. You might come to the conclusion that your hypothesis isn't true at the end of it, but the point is to test the validity of something. You can't test the validity of a negative claim, only a positive one.

For example, you cannot prove that I am not a shape-shifting alien called BeedleZog. Even if you had genetic tests that showed 100% match as human it doesn't discount the possibility that my alien race is actually genetically identical to humans or a bunch of other factors. You CAN however prove that I am 100% human genetically by doing the same test. Proving a negative is impossible which is why theistic arguments always make this mistake.

When you said "Executive pay has ballooned, with little or no connection to performance!", you made a positive claim that something DID happen rather than something DIDN'T. This is something that can be challenged fairly in any argument and the other poster pulled you up on it. At this point you should have defined your claim more specifically then provided the source that told you this, whether it be a newspaper or a research paper then gone from there. Instead you asked others to show how it is wrong which cannot be done as you're asking for evidence of a negative claim.

Later you conceded that there's probably no evidence either way which brings into question how you got this information in the first place.

My point is that you're asking him to refute something but you haven't actually backed up a sourced claim that he can then refute. You cannot refute unsourced positive claims because common languages lacks the specificity to check the information. In your example, you didn't give any time scales nor did you define what performance means so there isn't enough information to actually see what argument you are making. When you provide a source, one of the things that happens is that it is usually peer reviewed in some way and contains all of the missing information about those types of things that you didn't really mention, so he wouldn't really try to refute you because you haven't done any independent research into the area but instead he would try to refute the study that you provide.

If you don't provide a study or article or book or whatever then there is nothing for anybody to refute. That's why he's getting frustrated, you've asked him to show where something you have said is wrong but you haven't actually said anything that is specific enough to be able to be wrong. In essence the statement is not right or wrong because it doesn't make a testable claim. In scientific circles they say that these type of claims are "not even wrong", as in they have yet to reach the level to be considered right or wrong.

Sort of like saying 4 multiplied by 5 equals The Bolivian National Coastguard

 

[SWP's back]

I don't care, nor do I suspect there is evidence to prove it one way or another.

There is plenty of evidence of out of control bonuses, rampant executive pay, failed executives awarding themselves golden handshakes and share holder revolts over executive pay.

I don't have to prove the sun rises in the morning by the same token I don't have to prove the existence of excessive executive remuneration, it's for you to disprove it.

It is called refutation, your opponent makes a point (me) and you refute it, if you don't, it stands.

That is why when the Tories make a point, Labour refutes it, if they don't or the refutation is weak, then the Tory statement stands.

Then to make a claim that it's true is just bullshit.

And to your notion about not proving the sun rises in the morning, well no. But that's because it is freely available to be seen. But the reason why it rises and the theory of heliocentricity was proven, using evidence by Copernicus. You see, as I stated, that's the way it works.

But I suspect, judging by your last two paragraphs that you're just a fucking idiot.

Calling me a fucking idiot and refusing to debate the point, sums you up nicely.

If I'm such a fucking idiot then refute what I say, if you don't, or won't, or can't then that's on you.

You're a fucking idiot as you think people can just come out with whatever statement they like and tell other people the onus is on them to disprove it.

That is the thinking of a fucking idiot. It works the exact opposite way around.

Tell you what, on things such as these the I revert to Damocles, if he agrees with your method of debate, then I'll apologise. And he would never side with me for any other reason that I am correct, fucker has banned me more than anyone.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Then to make a claim that it's true is just bullshit.

I wonder why that might be.

You're the genius, you've posted god knows how many times since my original statement full of false indignation. If I'm the fucking idiot and my argument without foundation then destroy it, the fact you'll do anything but speaks volumes.

And to your notion about not proving the sun rises in the morning, well no. But that's because it is freely available to be seen. But the reason why it rises and the theory of heliocentricity was proven, using evidence by Copernicus. You see, as I stated, that's the way it works.

But I suspect, judging by your last two paragraphs that you're just a fucking idiot.

Calling me a fucking idiot and refusing to debate the point, sums you up nicely.

If I'm such a fucking idiot then refute what I say, if you don't, or won't, or can't then that's on you.

You're a fucking idiot as you think people can just come out with whatever statement they like and tell other people the onus is on them to disprove it.

That is the thinking of a fucking idiot. It works the exact opposite way around.

Tell you what, on things such as these the I revert to Damocles, if he agrees with your method of debate, then I'll apologise. And he would never side with me for any other reason that I am correct, fucker has banned me more than anyone.

 

[SWP's back]

Calling me a fucking idiot and refusing to debate the point, sums you up nicely.

If I'm such a fucking idiot then refute what I say, if you don't, or won't, or can't then that's on you.

You're a fucking idiot as you think people can just come out with whatever statement they like and tell other people the onus is on them to disprove it.

That is the thinking of a fucking idiot. It works the exact opposite way around.

Tell you what, on things such as these the I revert to Damocles, if he agrees with your method of debate, then I'll apologise. And he would never side with me for any other reason that I am correct, fucker has banned me more than anyone.

Ok so now you just quoted me and added nothing.

And apologies Damo, I had seen that you had posted before I requested your input. You do explain things extremely well.