Tuesday, March 19, 2019

The Burden of Proof & Violent Mass Events


The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination to disprove a claim does not make it valid. “Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore valid.” ~Your Logical Fallacy Is

Whenever a massive event occurs where laws are going to be put into place that affect the people’s liberty, such as 9/11 or the recent New Zealand shooting, or any other mass event where laws are being conveniently pushed forward in the immediate aftermath, it is incumbent upon them to show us proof that the event took place, that it occurred in the manner that they allege it took place, and that it occurred for the reasons they claim it took place. The burden of proof is on them to establish the facts, motive, and provide evidence, otherwise there is no reason to believe anything they say, and there’s definitely no reason to follow their legal advice as to a proper societal wide response.

We cannot be expected to consent to something that we have not independently verified actually occurred without access to the crime scene, evidence, witnesses, the perpetrator, etc., and if they say that it would disrupt the integrity of the investigation, then fine, they still must release everything afterwards, and must not destroy the evidence like they’ve often done such as with 9/11 and Sandy Hook. Additionally, no laws should even be entertained, much less passed, until the public has been granted full access to the entire body of evidence, research, witnesses, and other pertinent information, proper discourse has occurred, and all questions have been thoroughly answered.

It is on those making the claims and pushing new laws to prove that there was real events with deaths and casualties, and it’s on law enforcement to provide actual evidence of actual victims and autopsy reports, crime scene access, first hand testimony, and even access to the alleged perpetrators; and these are rarely, if ever, provided. For example, in some cases it is reported that there are multiple shooters, when there’s actually just one seriously deranged and mentally incompetent shooter standing trial. The government holds the burden of proof, and not the people, to prove these things to us. Then, and only then, should we even begin to discuss possible societal and other causes, and after that, we can finally discuss possible solutions.

The biggest issue is that many people these days have an external locus of identity, and therefore have an emotional attachment to reality being what they think it is–this blinds them to the evidence, and to the truth, of our manufactured reality. They’ll believe authority because subjective authority is the external author of their lives, as they lack the internal authority and adherence to objective standards that would allow them to lead self-directed lives. Their identity is wrapped up in what their peers think about them, so they’ll easily bend the knee to external authority if it allows them to continue to be accepted by their peer group. Therefore they won’t question authority, and allow the burden of proof to shift from those making the claims, and to themselves, because to question authority would mean they would lose the reassurance that they’re moral people.

I do not acknowledge, tolerate, suffer through, or consent to any laws made in this underhanded way, as they are not based in truth, but upon on the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof onto the people to prove things did not happen, rather than on those making the initial claims that they did indeed happen, happened in the exact manner that is being alleged, and for the reasons that are being alleged. Such laws are immoral, unrecognized, and disregarded by natural persons such as myself.