Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah event, suspect caught

[donkey1810]

Translation: There is no evidence

[RandomName]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[donkey1810]

Proof me wrong then

[Van]

@donkey1810

Proof me wrong then

watered down or barrel strength?

If you’re referencing the guy found hanging, we have to wait a little longer to know more

[Van]

@RandomName

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

@Mr_PBH

[Mr_PBH]

Yes?

[Van]

thought you might like it

[Mr_PBH]

I can’t see it.

But, I peeked. I find these kind of pseudo intellectual truisms to be lame. I differ my scorn to Grok.

The phrase “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” can be considered a lame response because it’s often used as a vague, catch-all dodge that avoids engaging with the actual question or argument. Here’s why it might come across as weak or unsatisfying:

1. Lack of Substance: It’s a truism that doesn’t provide new information or directly address the issue. It’s like saying, “We don’t know what we don’t know,” which feels dismissive and stalls the conversation without offering insight.
2. Overused Cliché: The phrase is frequently trotted out in debates (especially about unproven claims like extraterrestrial life or pseudoscience) to deflect skepticism without providing a counterargument. Its overuse makes it sound like a lazy cop-out.
3. Context-Dependent Weakness: While the statement can be logically true (e.g., just because we haven’t found proof of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist), it’s often irrelevant unless paired with a reason to believe the thing might exist. Without that, it’s just a rhetorical sidestep.
4. Shifts Burden Unfairly: It implies the skeptic must disprove a claim, rather than the claimant providing evidence. This can frustrate productive discussion, as it avoids the responsibility of backing up assertions with data.

[Van]

always taking the third path

[Mr_PBH]

Whoa, there are paths??

[Van]

@Van

@RandomName

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Grok is cynical

there is also a wiki

Evidence of absence

or two wikis

Argument from ignorance

I’ll get to you in an hour or two. I’m a slow reader. Plus I’m waiting for the garbage truck.

[donkey1810]

I think he wants to see you ASAP

[QuaSaShao]

@Mr_PBH

The right of free speech comes from the government. you studied philosophy. and should know this. How can speech be protected if the right to it didn’t come from the government?

Here’s how:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
– Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. Authors: Thomas Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams

[cycleroc]

@P007

So, do you have any examples of Kirk’s racist language? Or can’t you find any?

In this video he goes over several examples in full context. There’s a timestamp list in the description

Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk

[Mr_PBH]

@QuaSaShao

Here’s how:

Yeah, I don’t believe that says what you think it says in response to my question.

One government replacing another is just one system of rules swapped out for another.

Read your Hobbes, or John Austin, HLAHart, or even Dworkin, dude. Tbf , many lawyers never take a philosophy of law class and don’t know this stuff either. You cannot overthrow a government in order to protect the rights it provides. Any right the government doesn’t provide, like the right to breathe is more of a moral right, those of which are totally secondary in a legal sense.

This is not to say that modern morality doesn’t lead to changes in laws. They absolutely do.

[QuaSaShao]

@Mr_PBH

Yeah, I don’t believe that says what you think it says in response to my question.

“Unalienable rights” are a birthright, not something bestowed by government, according to America’s founders.

unalienable

adjective

un·​alien·​able ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl

-ˈā-lē-ə-

: impossible to take away or give up : inalienable

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—United States Declaration of Independence

[BiggusDickus]

Hobbes only supported one stable form of government.

@Mr_PBH

@QuaSaShao

Here’s how:

Yeah, I don’t believe that says what you think it says in response to my question.

One government replacing another is just one system of rules swapped out for another.

Read your Hobbes, or John Austin, HLAHart, or even Dwirkin, dude. Tbf , many lawyers never take a philosophy of law class and don’t know this stuff either. You cannot overthrow a government in order to protect the rights it provides. Any right the government doesn’t provide, like the right to breathe is more of a moral right, those of which are totally secondary in a legal sense.

This is not to say that modern morality doesn’t lead to changes in laws. They absolutely do.

[Mr_PBH]

@QuaSaShao

“Unalienable rights” are a birthright, not something bestowed by government, according to America’s founders.

Uh huh, and while the Declaration of Independence is a marvelous thing, it’s not the Constitution.

[Mr_PBH]

@BiggusDickus

Hobbes only supported one stable form of government.

I added a few folks.

[BiggusDickus]

Spreading your bets?

@Mr_PBH

@BiggusDickus

Hobbes only supported one stable form of government.

I added a few folks.