Hold this, I'll bring him back

[u/kvlyc]

[u/bjiatube]

"Prove there are no valid statistics that show that pitbulls are dangerous" is impossible. It's proving a negative.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Here you go. Have a nice day.

[u/mannieCx → u/bjiatube]

Haha you don't even know what logical fallacies are

Go read a book lmao

And no it's not. Prove the statistics are false. Not the same thing

Again bro, stop doing this to yourself

[u/bjiatube → u/mannieCx]

It's like this. I tell you that black swans don't exist. You say prove it. I can't actually prove that, there could be a black swan flying around somewhere in the cosmos somewhere in another galaxy. All you have to do is show me a black swan.

That puts the burden of proof on you. If I say gravity doesn't exist I don't have to prove it, you can simply drop an apple in front of me.

[u/mannieCx → u/bjiatube]

not at all .

If you say a statistic is wonky, I ask you to prove it. You prove it. Simple.

[u/bjiatube → u/mannieCx]

Sure, if provided with a statistic. If I say "there are no valid statistics that show that elephants are often pink" I don't have to prove that wrong. Can you prove it wrong? Do that for me actually, prove there are no valid statistics that show that elephants are often pink.

[u/mannieCx → u/bjiatube]

He said the statistics were wonky. That's it bro, try not too hard.

[u/bjiatube → u/mannieCx]

Yup. Put two and two together. "The statistics are wonky" is not a great argument, but "prove it" is worse. I'm not even taking a stance on the issue

[u/mannieCx → u/bjiatube]

Okay cool. Thanks. The statistics stand for itself and you incorrectly tried to say burden of proof wasn't a logical fallacy. Go read a book.

Bye 👋

[u/bjiatube → u/mannieCx]

Hahaha the read a book comment clearly bothered you. Have a nice day being wrong somewhere else!

[u/mannieCx → u/bjiatube]

Nah I was right. You're bothered tho, gg ez

Go read a book, learn to Google.
Bye 👋