Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1313213773465.png (46KB, 339x338px) Image search:
[Google]
46KB, 339x338px
Burden of proof is a fucking meme. /v/ is not for academic discussion. It's not my job to convince you of anything, despite the fact that you people think it is, for some inexplicably stupid reason.
Neither I'm asking you to find the research on your own. I've scanned the journals pretty throughly during this discussions: if I can't get to them (not without breaking my contract at least) then I'm entirely sure that you people won't.
Finally, burden of proof works on multiple levels. For an example: if somebody makes a consistent argument, and the other has none, then the discussion goes in the favor of the person providing the consistent argument. In fact: in reality, especially in philosophy, people don't go and demand proof from people who know something when they themselves know nothing.
But that is kinda besides the point, really. I don't know what you thought this was: but it was just me being kind to you sad sorry shits. And I don't owe you fucking trainwrecks shit.
>>
Cars 3 was okay
>>
>>380905023
>The two aren't mutually exclusive,
No, but they differ considerably in context and purpose.
>The subject of the thread is the failings of Denuvo,
Which means that no fact are allowed to be posted unless they directly reflect Denuovo in negative light? Is that how you people do this?
You can't say facts or truth in this thread because they might not be immediately interpreted as negative to denuovo!
I'm not defending SHIT you retard, because what I'm saying is not actually implying that I approve of their work or that you should approve of their work. Do you not understand the difference. That stating fact is not the same as approval?
Do you think that facts should not be stated if they don't immediately gratify your disapproval? Is that literally too nuanced stance to hold for you to deal with?
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1