On Sep 2, 5:36 pm, ernie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ernie Primeau) wrote:
> the 300 pound frustrated old ***** and asshole farrel cannot post proof
> that my method does not work,
Invoking the lack of negative proof - classic logical fallacy (see
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Ernie_Primeau#Ernie.27s_.27Progress_and_Victory_Declaration.27_Posts,
and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof,
and
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/phil_of_religion_text/chapter_5_arguments_experience/burden-of-proof.htm).
"Logical fallacy alert. Similar to the use of circular logic, the use
of an appeal to negative proof is done because although the logic of
the assertion is fallacious, it's internally consistent. While it is
true no one can ultimately prove Ernie's 'Pluck 'n' Grow' method
doesn't work (including "asshole farrel" or anyone else), this turns
the logic of scientific inquiry (which is predicated on positive
proof) on it's head. In other words, the burden of proof isn't on
everyone else to prove that Ernie's method doesn't work (which, it
obviously doesn't), it's for Ernie to offer convincing proof that it
does... obviously, something he's utterly incapable of doing.
> she cannot post how I would have been
> granted citizen****p to this great country if I had spent time in jail,
> or that I am a *** offender. Ernie
Can *you* prove you were ever granted citizen****p, Ernie? No, I didn't
think you could .
Besides, Ern, you always ask whether people can believe you're a ***
offender or that you spent time in jail (of which the answer is
invariably "yes" from everyone you ask) - that's a different question.
No one's accusing you - but can people believe it of you? Absolutely.
You seem like a classic felon and *** pervert to me, and I'm sure to
everyone else as well.
|
