A Time to kneel, Written by Ted Nugent

[Kutnupe14]

It is impossible to prove a negative. It is on you to prove institutional racism.

Examples welcome.

Demonstrably | Define Demonstrably at Dictionary.com
adjective1.capable of being demonstrated or proved.

2.clearly evident; obvious:

 

[2A_Tom]

Demonstrably | Define Demonstrably at Dictionary.com
adjective1.capable of being demonstrated or proved.

2.clearly evident; obvious:

Well the I guess demonstrably fits, I stand corrected.

 

[jamil]

Okay, about proving negatives. C'mon people. The internets have misled you. Yes. You can indeed prove a negative. I can prove that -2.379897 is not in the set of positive integers.

You can prove a negative when the domain is known. I can't prove there is no god because that domain is infinite, and therefore unknown. In other words I can't reveal all the possible places God can be to prove he's not in any of them.

You can also prove an inequality which is also a negative. I can prove something is not equal to some other thing. And this is the nature of Alpo's assertion. He is essentially challenging me to demonstrate that our country does not equal oppression of Blacks. That's provable.

Jamil: If you believe oppression to be demonstrably false, please demonstrate.

You overstate your case, methinks.

No. You're the one who has to prove it's everywhere. I don't have to prove it's nowhere, because that's not what I'm saying.

Then, it seems to me, one should avoid using such terms as "demonstrably" unless one has some proof. Otherwise, some of us who recognize that blacks and other minorities, as a group, continue to be frustrated in their desire to be treated the same as their white brothers and achieve equal outcomes irrespective of race, tend to discount such messages.

Why should I not use "demonstrably"? My proof is the civil rights act. Systemic/institutional racism is illegal. Before that, yes, the country oppressed black people. Now, in an authoritative sense which accompanies the definition of "oppression", one can only single out and oppress black people by breaking the law. You can't fire people because they're black. You can't not hire people because they're black. You can't pass laws that intend to prohibit black people from succeeding. That makes this country NOT oppressive to black people and people of color.

Now, that's not saying there aren't individual instances of racism resulting in some black people--not all black people--being oppressed. And to the extent those individual cases are happening because of race, THAT's ILLEGAL!

The strongest part of Kaepernick's protest, once you peal away the parts that are overstated, is that black people are disproportionately targeted by police. I do agree that does happen. There is evidence that happens, and that needs to stop. But it's not every police department and it's certainly not to such extent that one can say it is the country oppressing black people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why should I not use "demonstrably"? My proof is the civil rights act. Systemic/institutional racism is illegal. Before that, yes, the country oppressed black people. Now, in an authoritative sense which accompanies the definition of "oppression", one can only single out and oppress black people by breaking the law. You can't fire people because they're black. You can't not hire people because they're black. You can't pass laws that intend to prohibit black people from succeeding. That makes this country NOT oppressive to black people and people of color.

Now, that's not saying there aren't individual instances of racism resulting in some black people--not all black people--being oppressed. And to the extent those individual cases are happening because of race, THAT's ILLEGAL!

The strongest part of Kaepernick's protest, once you peal away the parts that are overstated, is that black people are disproportionately targeted by police. I do agree that does happen. There is evidence that happens, and that needs to stop. But it's not every police department and it's certainly not to such extent that one can say it is the country oppressing black people.

Illegal immigration is illegal, ergo there are no illegal immigrants. ....kinda not the logic you want to rely on as "proof."

 

[jamil]

It is impossible to prove a negative. It is on you to prove institutional racism.

Examples welcome.

Demonstrably | Define Demonstrably at Dictionary.com
adjective1.capable of being demonstrated or proved.

2.clearly evident; obvious:

Well the I guess demonstrably fits, I stand corrected.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with calling it demonstrable. And I don't have a problem with calling it something stronger, like provably false. Like I said, there are individual instances of racism which has the effect of oppressing black people. But that's not the same thing as a country which oppresses specific classes of citizens. If Kaepernick wants examples of actual oppression North Korea serves as a very solid example.

 

[jamil]

Illegal immigration is illegal, ergo there are no illegal immigrants. ....kinda not the logic you want to rely on as "proof."

Wow. That's absurdly facile.

It's NOT systemic; it's NOT institutional if it is against the law. The point is the country is not oppressing black people. Individuals are. And they're breaking the law to do it. Let's find those who are doing that for realz. Let's make them stop. The law is on our side.

 

[indiucky]

Okay, about proving negatives. C'mon people. The internets have misled you. Yes. You can indeed prove a negative. I can prove that -2.379897 is not in the set of positive integers.

Many Atheists/Agnostics try to use that argument, (not the good ones).....I can't remember who it was, either Dawkins or Hitchens who implored their followers to quit asking that in the q&a after a debate....It sounds real smart but as you've shown it's pretty easy to dismiss....

There are plenty of reasonable arguments against a higher power or Theism (and visa versa) but "You can't prove a negative" or "You can't prove the non existence of a thing or being" is not one of them....

There's a reason Dawkins uses "flying spaghetti monster" in lectures and not debates....Because he is smart and doesn't want a guy like you to go "Oh really????"

 

[jamil]

Many Atheists/Agnostics try to use that argument, (not the good ones).....I can't remember who it was, either Dawkins or Hitchens who implored their followers to quit asking that in the q&a after a debate....It sounds real smart but as you've shown it's pretty easy to dismiss....

There are plenty of reasonable arguments against a higher power or Theism (and visa versa) but "You can't prove a negative" or "You can't prove the non existence of a thing or being" is not one of them....

There's a reason Dawkins uses "flying spaghetti monster" in lectures and not debates....Because he is smart...

Well, the Atheist's use of "can't prove a negative" is actually correct if they don't take it too far. But they do. They can't prove God doesn't exist because the domain where God may reside is unknown, and currently unknowable in a physical sense. There's no concrete evidence that a spiritual realm even exists, but atheists take that argument far beyond its usefulness because its easier just to claim it's up to believers to prove their belief. I think that's kinda lazy. There is much more to belief than what is physically provable so I don't find much use in arguing that believers need to prove the existence of God. I get to believe what I believe too, and that's good enough for me.

The "flying spaghetti monster" argument isn't smart at all, IMO. And I'll make that point on their level, from an evolutionary standpoint. Atheists are among those who claim evolution is the origin of living things. So on an evolutionary platform, "flying spaghetti monster" doesn't fulfill the purpose of God. If we take things purely in terms of evolution, how would a flying spaghetti monster serve evolution?

Belief in the supernatural happens frequent enough and consistently enough, as part of all evolving cultures, to the extent that it's reasonable for evolutionary thinkers to say it is part of humans' evolutionary programming. The unlikely commonality of specific cross-cultural beliefs makes it a reasonable hypothesis that religious beliefs are more than just a way for primitive humans to explain unknowable things. So from an evolutionary standpoint, the atheists' "flying spaghetti monster" argument is an inadequate attack on belief.