I Need Proof That the Lack of Evidence Proves a Point (Vanity Question)

7/7/09 | Kirah

[Korah]

Indeed, you cannot prove a negative. You can only fail to prove a positive. So the burden is not on you, the burden is on him
The same line of reasoning could be made about proving the existence of God.

So does that mean that those who cannot prove God does not exist cannot prove their point also? Than would that mean that we must than accept everyone's belief regardless of how out of whack it is?

[wildbill]

Some years ago the theory of the gay gene was promulgated by a very respected professor from one of the elite California universities.

At the time, the gay community hated that idea. It was a ‘choice of lifestyle’ issue they said. They were gay by choice and proud of it. The attacks by the gays and thier liberal/left sympathizers about ran the professor out of the liberal and academic community as a homophobe or something.

Then their attitude and that of the MSM changed when HIV came to the attention of the public in the 80s. The only way to get funding for research was to portray themselves as helpless victims of their genetic code, because otherwise they could just change their ‘choice of lifestyle” to avoid the plague. NO gay gene, no money.

And of course the liberal elite and the grant chasers jumped on the gay gene bandwagon.

You might want to investigate these countervailing arguments and what motivates them.

[wbill]

My own opinion, for what it's worth....is that who you're attracted to is likely not a choice. Same-sex attraction may be genetic (unlikely) or some form of chemical imbalance (more likely, IMO) or something else that hasn't been figured out yet.

But "gay behavior"....that's a choice. Just like monogamous behavior (hopefully) after marriage. Or abstinence (right? :-) ) Or, pretty much any other sexual activity.

For someone to claim that who they have sex with is "Not a choice" would fall under the definition of "psychosis", again, in my opinion. Behavior is always a choice.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs between "sexual attraction", and "sexual activity"....but I think that it's an important hair to split. :-)

[Korah]

Example of another illogical argument based on your same fallacious reasoning:

There is no evidence that Abraham Lincoln hated vanilla ice cream. Thus, Abraham Lincoln must have liked vanilla ice cream.

Wrong!
Regards,

Maybe it proves he just dislikes ice cream all together, not just one flavor.

[Melas]

Your friend would be correct. The lack of evidence does not prove the converse. That’s a logical fallacy with a name, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Now that is not to say that you’re not coincidentally correct and that gayness is not congenital, just that lacking evidence of a gay gene does not make it so.

Simply put, if something exists, its existence is independent of any proof that may or may not exist at the time. Or rather the existence is not dependent upon the human discovery of said proof.

[Korah]

Interesting, I never thought about that before. Thanks.

[kevkrom]

The person I am debating claims no evidence does not prove my point

I believe the saying goes something like "it's impossible to prove a negative".

What you can say is that despite the best science has to offer looking into it, they have found exactly zero evidence to support your opponents' point of view.

[Rammer]

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/A000007735.cfm

[Niteranger68]

This sounds like one of those debates where if you win, you still lose. Anyhoo, I think the subject is more rooted in faith than fact so there is no way seal the victory.

[OneWingedShark]

Lol - I like your answer.

[YHAOS]

The assertion does not prove the fact. An assertion demands facts and proof to be anything more than a mere unsupported assertion. And, as someone has already pointed out, an extraordinary assertion demands extraordinary support. I believe your correspondent’s assertion constitutes an extraordinary assertion.

If your correspondent cannot deal with that basic a fact of logic, then he is not worth talking to.

[InvisibleChurch]

Ask him why some are afflicted with gayness and others not. Then step back and watch his head explode.

[InvisibleChurch]

He’ll demand the parents be jailed for a “hate non-crime”.

[Adder]

Maybe you can find some help here...

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000010419.cfm

[Excellence]

I didn’t make up the rules of reasoning.

[OneWingedShark]

The person I am debating claims no evidence does not prove my point, yet liberals do that all the time and I want to nail this b#s*ard.

I suggest the use of this:

Or this:

Happy nailing.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

You should have posted this under Philosophy. There is more philosophy being done in this thread than in almost all of the current threads in Philosophy combined!

[TChris]

You're taking on work which belongs to your opponent.

THEY (the gay community) are the ones advancing the claim that people are born gay. They, therefore, have the burden of proof, not you.

Your answer is simple: "You claim people are born gay. Prove it!"

Because the APA publically dropped its support for such a claim, your liberal friend will have a very tough time proving HIS claim.

Don't let him try to make you do the work.

[Secret Agent Man]

There is no gay gene and identical twin studies prove it.

If it were genetic, both twins share the same genetic code, and if one is gay, if it is genetically determined, the other would always be gay 100% of the time.

Yet in real world studies of identical twins where one is gay (observed by both gay (pro-gay) and non-gay researchers, the other identical twin is gay only about 50% of the time.

To be immutable, genetic, cannot NOT be gay, the identical twin would have to be gay 100% of the time. Same genetic code would not allow the other twin NOT to be gay if genetics force one to be gay or not.

[Korah]

The assertion does not prove the fact. An assertion demands facts and proof to be anything more than a mere unsupported assertion. And, as someone has already pointed out, an extraordinary assertion demands extraordinary support. I believe your correspondent’s assertion constitutes an extraordinary assertion.

HUH???



Ok, I am a simple person, could you please say that again in layman's terms?