World of Stalkercraft

[tesscaline]

I would have, even, if it hadn't been for the part where I got told to go learned some logic, and accused of a fine assortment of fallacies,

The truth hurts sometimes. Your claims HAVE been full of logical fallacies. I even told you which ones they were.

And for the record -- even if you provide a negative claim (i.e. Blizzard doesn't enforce their ToU), it's still your responsibility to at least provide some support for it. You failed to do that, and tried to shift your own burden of proof by whining "I don't have to prove a negative". That's really intellectually dishonest, and childish to boot.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Just can't take "yes" for an answer?

Now seriously, you've supported your claim that it can result in a banishment, and I've acknowledged as much.

ETA: I had written a bit more bickering first, but it's obvious that we're getting nowhere. Since I'm helpful like that, and you still seem to not get it on your own, here are a couple of helpful links:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

" As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

"The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

"If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified."

Roll that around in my head. Disbelieving your claim until supported is not some failure on my part, it's the default and justified.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

"There is one important set of circumstances under which it is clear who has the burden of proof. When one party makes a general claim, and the opposing party claims the existence of a counterexample, then the burden of proof lies on the person claiming the counterexample. "

Since your position is the one where one example suffices, I think they too agree that it was on you all the time. If still unconvinced, read their "Pigs fly" example right next to it and the explanation for why it's not the opposite party having that burden, regardless of how they may formulate their objection. (There it's formulated as a hardline "no, they don't" and it still doesn't make it their burden.)

Etc.

Basically it doesn't matter how often you repeat that, it still isn't and never was my burden to either support or disprove your claim that something happens. And since you say it's being childish and dishonest to try to shift it... yes. Exactly