Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)|
|Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,|
One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing". This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.
I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy. I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case. I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.
I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so. Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.
The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.
Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
Erm, I'm not understanding this at all.
When someone receives a punishment, when does it become their burden to prove they don't deserve it? Thats not generally how things work, anywhere.
Well, anywhere you'd want to emulate, at least.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris