Okay, so you do know what been means. Why are you still refusing to supply that data where it was previously refuted? Display that.matthew_lane said:
How are you not wrapping your brain around this? This has been proven demonstrably false IS a positive assertion! You are asserting that this has been tested and proven false, and that there is evidence of that occurrence. I am and have been asking for that evidence.matthew_lane said:
By your flawed logic if you are found not guilty of being a rapist then the evidence of you being tried as a rapist ceases to exist until you've been tried for the same crime again.
Here, let me demonstrate how a claim of 'has been proven demonstrably false' works:
The Earth being flat has been proven demonstrably false.
Here is the evidence:
In 276 BC, Eratosthenes proved it demonstrably false with his calculation of the circumference of the Earth which meant he had evidence that the Earth wasn't flat. More recently it was demonstrated false when we went into space and took pictures of our spherical planet.
Do you notice how I do not require anyone to provide evidence for the Earth being flat to supply any evidence of how it has been proven demonstrably false? I didn't even have to flail about with a bunch of the weak excuses for my evidence's existence until someone provided the evidence for the Earth being flat for me to refute that data as if that's proof of previous demonstrations. You know, like what you've been doing this entire conversation.
You're even acknowledging that what you meant it has happened before and yet you still refuse to supply any of the data from those previous events? A link, some quote, an article, anything! To go to such lengths to avoid providing any data has required more time and effort on your part just copy-pasting anything, that I can only assume you have nothing to go on.matthew_lane said:
You have made a claim: This has been proven demonstrably false. Every one of your posts have been an attempt to shift your burden of proof away from yourself. Much of it is as if you think that if I would provide data for you to refute now that it is somehow proof of when it was refuted before. Before you tried to go over the fallacies I supposedly use for a claim I didn't actually make, a claim I do not and have not supported. I even offered a correction and retraction of the statement if you misinterpreted it, that it might've been a poorly framed as an insinuation when I was speaking about hypotheticals for someone's coincidence issue, but you wouldn't accept that. Let's cover your logical fallacies:
Proof by Verbosity - I don't know if it has, when it was or how you would prove this kind of recent social events demonstrably false; but then again, I'm not the one that made the claim.
Appeal to Motive - You keep heaping motives and meaning onto a hypothetical statement as if that was evidence thus you continue to not support your claim.
Argument from Ignorance - Since we are talking about something so recently I don't know if it has not been proven demonstrably false or if the data of those demonstrations are even available for ease of use, and it seems you don't either.
Argument from repetition - Despite your claim being challenged all you seem to post are repetitive comments about the hypothetical statement that spawned the claim that you have so far refused to back up.
Fallacy of division - You seem to think that just because you think you can prove it demonstrably false now that that's proof of how it has already been demonstrably false.
Ad hominem - Just about every one of your posts has included some form of insult regarding my intelligence or my grasp of logic. Incidentally, every one of those posts that contain said insults also contained zero evidence for your claim.
Good job.
