RicOlie_2

Both (but not miles per hour). ;)

Is that what it was. I was trying to figure out what he meant. Regardless, I still can drive 110.

I only just realized that there is a grammatical error in the title of this thread.

I can drive 110.

You could be considered the driver, but you're stuck driving in fog if that's the case.

Well, my dad doesn't have the ability to use the Zillions file...though that could be arranged I suppose. I'll check with him to see which he prefers.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Imperialscum. The average person doesn't even know about the SE, never mind care about the controversy. Maybe it's more well known in some regions, but where I'm from (and where I live now--thought that doesn't really count), Star Wars isn't really that big. You may get the impression that a lot of people know about this by hanging out with other Star Wars fans and movie-lovers, but the average Joe or Jane on the street won't have a clue about all this. Even movie-lovers aren't much in the know unless they are Star Wars fans.

This game looks like it might be faster-paced than Kokusai Sannin. The pieces are more powerful for the most part, and the board is smaller. Faster-paced may not mean shorter, however, seeing as a player is not out of play until he loses all of his pieces, and a captured king must be dropped back into play before any other pieces, allowing it to be recaptured.

msycamore said:

Easterhay said:

Another reason to buy the Blu-rays is that each film comes with an additional archive commentary track. I sat down and watched The Empire Strikes Back whilst listening to the exclusive commentary last night and it was well worth it. Very nice to hear some comments from Alec Guinness, too.

 

Man, I wish I could hear what Alec Guiness had to say about that 2011 production...

 Wasn't he dead by then?

Being that I started out with the presumption that elves did not exist, I would not have expected any in the first place. Any splattered blood and flying body parts originating from the rock would be suspect, and I doubt I would stay around to have DNA confirmation that these were elves. If these elves were of supernatural or non-corporeal nature, and were not affected by the explosives, I would perhaps try to make amends before fleeing.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

I think Post Praetorian is a psychologist-bot.

 If so, he does a fantastically good job of hiding it in person....

 Ah yes, he's your dad.  Forgot about that.

 Although his philosophizings here may seem to be the most prevalent part of his personality to others, I find I cannot enjoy comedy nearly as much without him in attendance, as the ease at which he laughs at jokes (and makes them) brings everyone else's laughter up a few notches.

I think I would get the burden of proof, if I challenged his claim...showing that there is no evidence for his claim would be my first step. I'd obtain some explosives and blow up his rock to show that it was empty of elves, and if there were indeed elves, I would probably run and get back to Canada before the authorities apprehended me.

Good point. I suppose it's the difference between the treating "the United States of America" as a plural or as a singular name. Some people treat it the former way, though the latter way is equally correct and is more common.

TV's Frink said:

No, it was a single clone wars.

LOL...

How did something as basic as that get missed when they made the prequels? Does the answer lie between ROTS and ANH?

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think the burden of proof would be dependent, not on location, but on who made the claim. For instance, if this Muslim declared to his colleague that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet," he would have to back himself up. If he overheard a conversation between two atheists who were expressing their disbelief in God, and he wanted to contest that point, the onus would be on him to support his theistic worldview, despite the assertion that there is no God having been made by others, since he would be challenging the claim.

In the first instance, he made the claim, and accordingly, he needed to back it up. In the second instance, he also made a claim that a previous assertion was false. Had the original party asserted that the holocaust had never happened--there simply wasn't any evidence for it--and he had disputed it, the onus would still have been on him to show that they were wrong, since it was he who intruded on the conversation to add his input. The burden of proof could easily shift, however. For instance, if the Muslim man showed a photograph of the aftermath of a gas chamber, with a Nazi flag visible in the photo, and one of the holocaust-deniers said it was photoshopped, the latter would have to support his claim.

The reason I think the minority position has the burden of proof by default is because it is they who are asserting that most people are wrong in a particular area. If they want anyone to pay any attention, they have to make their case. If a member of the majority disputes one of the reasons given by the minority for holding their position, the onus shifts to the member of the majority to back up their reason for disagreeing on a particular point, and so forth.

These are fine and clear points and I thank you for them. Three things more must be inquired upon if not too great a burden...

If a theist and an atheist might be the sole occupants of the International Space Station, during a global devastation that is assumed to eliminate the remainder of mankind. The theist is prepared to claim the event as a retribution from God whilst the atheist is about to blame the cause of the conflict on religion. Is the burden of proof upon the one who might first speak? Supposing it is the theist who speaks first, but the atheist does not at first hear. Then supposing the atheist speaks, thinking he is first. Must they both bear then the burden of proof?

In this case, two separate claims are being made. Thus, both bear the burden of proof. If, when our hypothetical theist claims the event is retribution from God, the atheist asserts that the theist is wrong, the onus is now on the atheist to prove the theist wrong.

Supposing still further that the atheist might be deaf and unable to hear the theist whilst the theist might be able to understand neither the signing nor the written word of the atheist. To whom might belong the burden of proof in such an instance?

Either the burden of proof would function no differently than otherwise, or, due to the difficulty of communication, the pair ought to stop arguing, seeing as they have the rest of their lives to live in solitude and would do better trying to get along.

Finally, supposing a woman might be put on trial as a witch. Allowing that it may be agreed that the burden of proof must needs be with her accusers, supposing said burden is one with which the community is in accord and all have agreed has been readily provided both in visible fact and by testimonial witness. Supposing all willingly recognize this evidence save the accused. Is the burden of disproof now at her feet as a member of the minority?

 In this scenario, the legal burden of proof, rather than the philosophical one, would be deferred to. The burden of proof would naturally fall to her, however, since she has no way of saving herself if she places it on her accusers, who would not feel obligated to prove anything when there was no disagreement save among the accused.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Koryo Songhay said:

If the Clone Wars were an anthology...

Fixed. =P 

 Fixed more. =P

I think the burden of proof would be dependent, not on location, but on who made the claim. For instance, if this Muslim declared to his colleague that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet," he would have to back himself up. If he overheard a conversation between two atheists who were expressing their disbelief in God, and he wanted to contest that point, the onus would be on him to support his theistic worldview, despite the assertion that there is no God having been made by others, since he would be challenging the claim.

In the first instance, he made the claim, and accordingly, he needed to back it up. In the second instance, he also made a claim that a previous assertion was false. Had the original party asserted that the holocaust had never happened--there simply wasn't any evidence for it--and he had disputed it, the onus would still have been on him to show that they were wrong, since it was he who intruded on the conversation to add his input. The burden of proof could easily shift, however. For instance, if the Muslim man showed a photograph of the aftermath of a gas chamber, with a Nazi flag visible in the photo, and one of the holocaust-deniers said it was photoshopped, the latter would have to support his claim.

The reason I think the minority position has the burden of proof by default is because it is they who are asserting that most people are wrong in a particular area. If they want anyone to pay any attention, they have to make their case. If a member of the majority disputes one of the reasons given by the minority for holding their position, the onus shifts to the member of the majority to back up their reason for disagreeing on a particular point, and so forth.

TV's Frink said:

I think Post Praetorian is a psychologist-bot.

 If so, he does a fantastically good job of hiding it in person....

I think it's highly unfair to Lucas to say he didn't have talent. He may have lost it when the prequels came, or perhaps he needed other people to balance him out in some areas, but didn't have them during prequel production, but to say that he didn't have talent...

I don't know about how long it would have lasted, but I would have loved that kind of thing. Some episodes are already like that, but I wouldn't have minded seeing separate storylines (perhaps over a few episodes) that had nothing to do with the main characters more often. It might also have been interesting if they switched up the main characters every season.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said:

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists.  You can't prove he doesn't exist either though.  Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.

It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).

If this may be the case, might a potential future in which God might be disbelieved by the majority then shift the burden of His proving back to the theist?

At what % of belief/disbelief might this burden change?

 Certainly, it would shift back onto the theists if the generally accepted view changed. However, I'm not entirely clear on how the burden of proof is generally accepted to work when the majority is asserting a positive. I think the existence or non-existence of God is unprovable, nearly as much as it is impossible to prove or disprove whether or not we are living in an advanced race's computer simulation, excepting personal experiences demonstrating his existence to the person who has that experience.

As for a percentage, since I would say the burden of proof is not an precise rule, but rather more of a good guideline (much like Occam's Razor), a clear majority would not have the burden of proof, but the narrower the gap between the majority and minority becomes, the less clear the burden of proof becomes (probably defaulting to the positive claim, however).

Wikipedia says the following, but I'm having trouble figuring out if this supports what I asserted above, refutes it, or does neither:

Wikipedia said:

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made  by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".

After fiddling around for a while, I got it to look like it does in the picture you linked to. So, I'm set up. I'll read the rules later in the day, but before I send the file to my dad, I want to make sure we have our pieces on the exact same squares (either that, or we need to sort out a new coordinate system). Currently, my black pieces start on row 14, and the back row of the red pieces extend from 4uv to 9zaa. We can't use the spreadsheet coordinates if your board isn't the same, so be sure to let me know what yours looks like now.

dclarkg said:

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists.  You can't prove he doesn't exist either though.  Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.

It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).

You misspelled my name TVs Frink! ;)

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Is it? Why would releasing the same thing again be more profitable than releasing something different?

Well the ratio between profit and investment would be maximised. They would practically spent nothing to release it while it has been proven over and over again that Star Wars fans buy just about everything LucasFilm releases.

In spite of all the fans who think Han shooting first destroyed Star Wars forever and the people who are willing to restore the OOT for free?

 Citation needed. :P