It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Uncinus
If there's no proof, then why do you keep asking for it?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Uncinus
If there's no proof, then why do you keep asking for it?
Because I'm being rhetorical. Of course you can't prove that chemtrails don't exist, and I'm not trying to prove to you that they do.
I'm just hoping that the next time someone posts a photo they claim is a chemtrail, you won't come out dancing all over it with logical fallacies of "ohhh that's just a contrail" when you would just be making yourself out a hypocrite.
Originally posted by JohnStrawManDoe
WATER VAPOUR! ITS WATER VAPOUR for gods sake.
Originally posted by JohnStrawManDoe
WATER VAPOUR! ITS WATER VAPOUR for gods sake.
My advice, keep taking the medication and then when you are well enough go back to school and study rudimentary science.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Just so long as you don't go claiming this is a real cat. I'm pretty sure it's a robot cat that only looks like a real cat.
Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're really so damned confident then you must have some evidence against their existence? Otherwise why would you be so emotional about it?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Uncinus
Just so long as you don't go claiming this is a real cat. I'm pretty sure it's a robot cat that only looks like a real cat.
Once again resulting to mockery and ridicule when you don't have a real argument.
Let me know when your robot cat nonsense finally catches on with all of us gullible crazy people.
Originally posted by Uncinus
I'm not mocking you BTW, I'm just pointing out how pointless your "can't tell the difference between identical things" argument is.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're really so damned confident then you must have some evidence against their existence? Otherwise why would you be so emotional about it?
I do wonder why you keep using this argument from ignorance line when it is one of the best known logical fallacies around.
Originally posted by Goathief
People can claim contrails as that is what they are (until someone proves that they could be anything else).
You have to prove that "chemtrails" exist before anything else.
Originally posted by Goathief
Certainly not "Chemtrails" as they do not exist.
Prove otherwise by all means.
Appeal to Ignorance
There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Claiming that something does not exist, is just as much of a claim, as saying that something does exist. It's an assertion that requires evidence just the same in either case.
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. -— Copi , Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by bsbray11
Claiming that something does not exist, is just as much of a claim, as saying that something does exist. It's an assertion that requires evidence just the same in either case.
No it's not.
If chemtrails existed, there would be evidence they existed. There's no evidence.
The evidence that chemtrails do no exist is the lack of evidence that they do. This is called Evidence of Absence. It is not a symmetrical argument.
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. -— Copi , Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95