Homophobic attack on London bus - mod warning, please see OP

Kimsang

elli21 wrote: »

And there ladies and gentlmen we have it...

The scum that carry out this homophobic attack are not responsible..It's the brown muslims fault

The poster was alluding to the fact that Sadiq Khan got elected on the mandate of putting an end to stop and search. Stop & search was called out by social justice warriors as racist, beause it was racially profiling people, the majority of people stopped were BAME.
This is a decision he has since u-turned on, but too little too late. Look at the success implementing stop and search achieved in New York.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

Bad things happen when people are afraid to be called racist, like the police forces in Britain that allowed rape gangs to perpetrate horrendous crimes for years.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

You can not prove a negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

No that's not what he is saying though.

You can prove a positive that negates or contradicts a positive assertion or statement. Its not proving a negative.

Its called falsefiability.


They can be true or hypothetical.

Technically you can't prove a negative. You can however prove things that support a negative statement.

And yes the onus might be on you outside of a logic question to prove you didn't do something.

You can get caught in a logical bubble sometimes.

I.E you can't prove you didn't do something ..you can prove where you were when it happened though.

Logically you can't prove a negative in the real world you often have to.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No that's not what he is saying though.

You can prove a positive that negates or contradicts a positive assertion or statement. Its not proving a negative.

Its called falsefiability.


They can be true or hypothetical.

Can you prove to me that there isn't a 16th century tea pot orbiting the sun.

If I then make the claim that since you can't supply proof that it doesn't exist; It must exist


That is the logical fallacy here.

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

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Can you prove to me that there isn't a 16th century tea pot orbiting the sun.

If I then make the claim that since you can't supply proof- it doesn't exist;
then I say that is proof that it exists.

That is the logical fallacy here.

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

Yes I can. By proving many positive things that negate that theory.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes I can. By proving many positive things that negate that theory.

Please go ahead and disprove my claim then, i'm all eyes :eek::pac:

(but you may want to look at russell's teapot section of wikipedia first)

Kimsang

DubInMeath wrote: »

Pretty bad attempt at dodging the question.

According to you there was no evidence that the attack was homophobic, you stated it multiple times. Can you back it up with evidence or not.

Argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Kimsang

elli21 wrote: »

Yes I am saying this disgusting homophobic attack had nothing to with Khan.The only people resposile for this crime are those who commited the crime..

You sound like one of those parents who blame everthing on others and maybe if they had a skateboarding park..

Give me a break :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There is a strong correlation between Khan putting an end to stop and search(because apparently it was a racist practise) and crime exploding in London.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Please go ahead and disprove my claim then, i'm all eyes :eek::pac:

(but you may want to look at russell's teapot section of wikipedia first)

There are many proofs and theorems that substantiate negative claims.
A clear negative statement is just as open to the proof that is wrong as any other.

There are many cases where you can prove something does not exist.

You can logically prove some things don't exist.

There are no married bachelors.


Localized contingent truths
I don't have six fingers on my hand. I can show you my hand.



There are several impossibility mathematical proofs that prove a negative i mean you come to modus tollens. Arrows theorem.

You can't prove a negative in some arguments. But not all.


In an argument where you cannot prove a negative (and yes there are many but confined to philosophy mostly) the onus is then on the one making a positive claim. As its clear this claim cannot be falsified.

You might in those arguments hear someone say you can't prove a negative. It might be particular to that debate though.


Bertrand Russell QUALIFIED his statement about negatives he stated UNFALSIFIABLE claims. Its solely in the context of religions in this instance.

You can't apply this universally.

It was to do with debates on god. Not the physical world.


I've often used to the 'you can't prove a negative' in religious debates but it can't be stated you can't prove a negative across the board etc.

We can now send up satellites up and see as they travel around there is no teapot.

But that isn't the point of Russells analogy.

Whether or not you can prove a negative depends on the argument.

Bertrand Russell wasn't trying to suggest you can't prove a negative in any area beyond god arguments by the way. He was very clear UNFALSIFIABLE.

Kimsang

Faugheen wrote: »

I really don't understand why you're comparing a homophobic attack to one of a straight couple, seriously. It's absolute bollocks logic.

What does your more profound logic dictate?
That perpetrators of homophobic attacks deserve longer sentences than other similar violent attacks?

From my point of view both types of attacks are abhorrent, and neither deserves more or less symapthy. I guess this is what they call the oppression olympics.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy.

It is indeed it has nothing to do with this though.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Bertrand Russell QUALIFIED his statement about negatives he stated UNFALSIFIABLE claims. Its solely in the context of religions in this instance.

I've often used to the 'you can't prove a negative' in religious debates but it can't be stated you can't prove a negative across the board etc.

We can now send up satellites up and see as they travel around there is no teapot.

But that isn't the point of Russells analogy.

Whether or not you can prove a negative depends on the argument.

Are you saying that the statement "this is a homophobic attack" is a falsifiable statement? I was of course always talking in the context of this argument.

Because I'm saying this is an unfalsifiable statement, since intent would be nearly impossible to prove, and impossible to disprove. The words homophobic attack implies intent in the case of the attacker.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Are you saying that the statement "this is a homophobic attack" is a falsifiable statement?

Probably.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Are you saying that the statement "this is a homophobic attack" is a falsifiable statement? I was of course always talking in the context of this argument.

Because I'm saying this is an unfalsifiable statement, since intent would be nearly impossible to prove, and impossible to disprove. The words homophobic attack implies intent in the case of the attacker.

The last part just sounds like a mad rant.

Many legal cases are logically technically unfalisfiable its true....its why you have the whole stupid presumption of innocence thing...

You could probably prove this. I imagine there are witnesses. Obviously they have now forensic evidence. Cases are becoming more and more falsifiable.

You only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt though we don't need Modus tollens here. So yeah i reckon we can prove this was homophobic.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Probably.

To secure a conviction for a hate crime, the prosecutor must convince the judge or jury that the defendant committed the underlying criminal act (such as assault or vandalism), and did so with the requisite intent. Not every crime committed against a racial minority or a person who is gay is a hate crime. In order to convict a defendant of a hate crime, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crimebecause of the victim’s race or sexual orientation or for some other prohibited reason. Proving that the defendant acted with hate crime intent can be challenging, unless the defendant admits (to police or others) that the crime was motivated by bias.

Aside from defendant’s own statements, relevant evidence of bias might include:

defendant’s membership in a group that espouses hatred for certain groups (such as a black separatist group or an online chat group that opposes homosexuality)
defendant’s possession of literature or symbols associated with bias, such as Nazi memorabilia or anti-Semitic texts
defendant’s own writings, graffiti, or tattoos
the use of biased slurs or graffiti during or at the site of the crime
the date of the incident, if it coincides with a significant holiday or anniversary, and
other hate crimes committed by defendant.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-prosecutors-prove-hate-crimes.html


I guess we might say that the person had no hate symbols on their bodies, would that prove it was't a homophobic attack? If they didn't have nazi tattoos?

ILoveYourVibes

I hate that no matter how many times i put words like unfalsifiable into my dictionary it still comes up on auto correct.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-prosecutors-prove-hate-crimes.html

Many legal cases are logically technically unfalisfiable its true....its why you have the whole stupid presumption of innocence thing...

You could probably prove this. I imagine there are witnesses. Obviously they have now forensic evidence. Cases are becoming more and more falsifiable.

You only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt though we don't need Modus tollens here. So yeah i reckon we can prove this was homophobic.

Pretty sure a witness can prove it. People heard them goading them verbally about it.

ILoveYourVibes

Im off before Kimsang starts ranting about the kitchen sink.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Many legal cases are logically technically unfalisfiable its true....its why you have the whole stupid presumption of innocence thing...

You could probably prove this. I imagine there are witnesses. Obviously they have now forensic evidence. Cases are becoming more and more falsifiable.

You only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt though we don't need Modus tollens here. So yeah i reckon we can prove this was homophobic.

Pretty sure a witness can prove it. People heard them goading them verbally about it.

Remember the question originally posed asking for proof that this wasn't a homophobic attack.
My question to you; if the person had no hate symbols on their bodies, were not members of any gangs, would that prove it wasn't a hate crime?

It shouldn't in my books. That is the argument from ignorance

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Remember the question originally posed asking for proof that this wasn't a homophobic attack.
My question to you; if the person had no hate symbols on their bodies, were not members of any gangs, would that prove it wasn't a hate crime?

It shouldn't in my books. That is the argument from ignorance

It would constitute evidence in a court of law. Similarly having gay friends might.

In this case homophobic goading was overheard.

ILoveYourVibes

Logic and reason are not the same.

ILoveYourVibes

This honestly just proves the people of AH can't talk about things.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It would constitute evidence in a court of law. Similarly having gay friends might.

In this case homophobic goading was overheard.

Homophobic goading doesn't prove intent. Making hateful gay slurs does not constitute a hate crime.

This is where we fundamentally disagree

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Homophobic goading doesn't prove intent. Making hateful gay slurs does not constitute a hate crime.

This is where we fundamentally disagree

Beating someone until they have blood over their face after you make homophobic remarks sure does though. I am sure the jury will agree.

ILoveYourVibes

This happens in Ireland too.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/two-young-women-savagely-beaten-in-homophobic-attack-31011386.html

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Beating someone until they have blood over their face after you make homophobic remarks sure does though. I am sure the jury will agree.

That's exactly the point, to prove a hate crime occurred you must prove that the person initiated the attack because of that person's whatever protected characteristic.

To take your vulgar example, this does not prove a hate crime. But it will fuel enough emotion to prosecute as much, I agree with you.


A hate crime should be reserved for people who really deserve it. Like the nazis, or the KKK. Those people systematically abused other humans because of certain characteristics, and it was easy to prove.

Kimsang

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ill-murder-you-you-dirty-spring-roll-horror-racist-attack-on-young-girl-outside-pizza-shop-35782050.html

Please take a look at this video.

Its being called a 'racist attack' because one girl called another a 'springroll' during a vicious attack

However if you watch the video you clearly see the attacking girl say 'if you get cheeky with me again" indicating there was a past between the two girls, instead of just an attack because of her race.

It is not a hate crime, but everyone is calling it as such. would you call it a hate crime?

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Please take a look at this video.

no

spurious

You just know that in the strange world/minds of some AH posters, this was the women's fault.

spurious

Kimsang wrote:

However if you watch the video you clearly see the attacking girl say 'if you get cheeky with me again" indicating there was a past between the two girls, instead of just an attack because of her race.

If you speak fluent scang, you will know 'getting cheeky' can cover everything from a teacher asking them to take out their books, why they are late, a look in their direction, not wanting your property stolen or simply walking along the street minding your own business.

Interested Observer

spurious wrote: »

You just know that in the strange world/minds of some AH posters, this was the women's fault.

This thread is ****ing disgusting tbh.