Anecdotal Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

I never said, that cops nor firearms do not exist.  However the point is, that testimony either is or is not evidence.   Perhaps you are confused, because I'm not discussing Christianity or any specific claims regarding religion.  Only principles about testimony as evidence.   Does that change your stance on testimony as evidence?

Sure you aren't, lol.  This whole attempt to validate anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with your silly beliefs, and you didn;t create this thread as a way to argue some point you think might be relevant to them and your interactions with people who call them silly anecdotes.

Do you think that people only accept that cops exist, or that cops shoot people, because of testimonial evidence?  Is that the sum total of evidence for cops, or cops that shoot people?  There is no other evidence.  No men in uniforms with guns and badges?  No bodies laying on the ground shot by men in uniforms with badges?  No video of men in uniforms with badges shooting people or standing over bodies on the ground? 

Because unless you think any of the above.....your question was petulant and you should know better.  In fact, as we've seen in thread, you -do- know better...even if you will never, ever, under any circumstances, concede that simple fact that you yourself have made apparent, because this lie exposes that other lie...that you're totally not talking about, that has nothing to do with your posts in this thread, at all...lol.  There is a grating futility in attempting to argue what is so painfully transparent,  RR.  No, anecdote is not evidence, -you- do not consider anecdote to be evidence, and -you- do not always handle anecdotes uniformly.  You believe in some of them and not in others, not because of the quality of their contents or their weight or because you think that they're evidence...but for other reasons*.  Handed two sets of anecdotes, one of objectively greater value -as- evidence..if anecdotes can be said to have that value in the first place, you choose the lesser set as the truer set.  Obviously, something other than a consideration of what is made evident by anecdote is at play, something other than a rational web of justification underlies your acceptance of anecdote, -when- you deign to accept anecdote.  Trying to level the field by reference to your blatantly ridiculous question of "why do people think cops kill people" is simple desperation.  Why, indeed. Unless the answer is "because anecdotes, ofc" - it's a nonstarter for you.

[Expired]

Also depends on who is testifying, and whether you think their claims can be trusted or not.

[John V]

Are we at the point where you try to attack and discredit me, without adding anything about the discussion.     Would you like to amend the principle in question?  How about it is not evidence, if we don't like the conclusion?   Or you can tell me how I am mis-applying the principle?   Or better yet, justify these some of the special rules being put forth.

You're being shitty.

Was Rhythm being shitty in calling his post a shitpost?

RR is absolutely right. I see the same regularly here myself. To be fair, on majority theist forums theists probably do the same to atheists. Here, yes, atheists with nothing to say will pile on against a theist, particularly if the theist is doing well.

[RoadRunner79]

I never said, that cops nor firearms do not exist.  However the point is, that testimony either is or is not evidence.   Perhaps you are confused, because I'm not discussing Christianity or any specific claims regarding religion.  Only principles about testimony as evidence.   Does that change your stance on testimony as evidence?

Do you think that people only accept that cops exist, or that cops shoot people, because of testimonial evidence?  Is that the sum total of evidence for cops, or cops that shoot people?  There is no other evidence.  No men in uniforms with guns and badges?  No bodies laying on the ground shot by men in uniforms with badges?  No video of men in uniforms with badges shooting people or standing over bodies on the ground? 

Perhaps, but I am awaiting evidence. I have yet to see a scientific peer reviewed and repeatable experiment which testifies to such. But you also bring up another bad and related argument with the video. If I believed those video's, then wouldn't I also be required to believe the videos depicting Harry Potter, as evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet another shitpost propping up a previous shitpost.  You don't think that a human being declared doa by forensic evidence that indicates that said person was shot by the service pistol of a particular police officer who is on video shooting said person would qualify as "scientific evidence"?  Or is that anecdote, to your mind?

Do you think that the Harry Potter movies are in any way equivalent to that?

Because unless you do.....and lets be honest here..if you do there's no sense in speaking to you anymore, we need to call your handlers and get you back to a safe place where you can't choke on the crayons.....you have yourself another non-starter.

[LadyForCamus]

You're being shitty.

Was Rhythm being shitty in calling his post a shitpost?

RR is absolutely right. I see the same regularly here myself. To be fair, on majority theist forums theists probably do the same to atheists. Here, yes, atheists with nothing to say will pile on against a theist, particularly if the theist is doing well.

Lol, your perception is that RR is do well? Rhythm is correct. It was a dodgy, dishonest (either intentionally or unintentionally) response to a valid point. Makes no difference to me which is the atheist and which is the theist.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wonder, does our other interlocuter also have trouble identifying the difference between forensic evidence and the Harry Potter movies?  Is this a common trait for some demographic?  Show of hands, anyone who's unclear on that and needs it explained from top to bottom...I just think it might be useful to know wtf we're dealing with here.

If that's what needs to be explained, this thread isn't even remotely about anecdotal evidence, there's a more fundamental issue at play, because neither the killer cop -nor- Harry Potter movies have anything to do with anecdotal evidence, nor does the difference between them.

I've seen those movies, and -if- we're going to assign or imply some sort of equivalence in a thread where we have repeatedly seen the insistence that this sort of evidence is good for a trial....we need to bring Daniel Radcliffe and the rest of the cast up on some pretty serious charges.

[LadyForCamus]

Do you think that people only accept that cops exist, or that cops shoot people, because of testimonial evidence?  Is that the sum total of evidence for cops, or cops that shoot people?  There is no other evidence.  No men in uniforms with guns and badges?  No bodies laying on the ground shot by men in uniforms with badges?  No video of men in uniforms with badges shooting people or standing over bodies on the ground? 

Perhaps, but I am awaiting evidence.  I have yet to see a scientific peer reviewed and repeatable experiment which testifies to such.   But you also bring up another bad and related argument with the video. If I believed those video's, then wouldn't I also be required to believe the videos depicting Harry Potter, as evidence?

Lol, here it comes.  Now we're going to conflate actual evidence, including any scientific evidence that may exist for a particular claim, with testimony.  Why you think peer reviewed scientific evidence is at all relevant or appropriate in the case of whether or not cops exist and shoot people is...beyond my comprehension. I mean, in terms of scientific evidence, are you talking about things like criminal forensics?  Ballistics results?  Blood spatter?  Determination of probable murder weapons?  Because...ya know...that IS actually science, lol.

But, it's a moot point with you anyhow, because we all know your next question will be, "How do we KNOW the scientists actually did the research?  Did you see them performing the tests?!"   

How can you NOT see how utterly vapid, desperate, and irrational such a question is, RR?

[LadyForCamus]

Yet another shitpost propping up a previous shitpost.  You don't think that a human being declared doa by forensic evidence that indicates that said person was shot by the service pistol of a particular police officer who is on video shooting said person would qualify as "scientific evidence"?  Or is that anecdote, to your mind?

Do you think that the Harry Potter movies are in any way equivalent to that?

Because unless you do.....and lets be honest here..if you do there's no sense in speaking to you anymore, we need to call your handlers and get you back to a safe place where you can't choke on the crayons.....you have yourself another non-starter.

LOL. [emoji23]

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< I'm glad you enjoyed that.  

I know it's a bit harsh, but I'm watching the OP dive for his threads life to the bottom of a trench here, and wondering what the point in that could possibly be?  I thought the idea was to make the position expressed with regards to anecdotal evidence -more- plausible, -more- credible....

Maybe if it were a mockumentary, or just a crime drama or something....maybe then we could at least -pretend- that we were having some other discussion...but the particular movie referenced is about fucking wizards and quidditch, so.....all we're being asked is how to tell the difference between high fantasy on the big screen and forensic evidence.  I'd start with the presence of wizards and quidditch, myself.  Or maybe the fact that characters seen to have died in the movies just keep showing up at cast parties and making more movies.....but it's hard to see why those things would be compelling to a person who really -does- need he difference explained to them.  That person, if they exist, is just a loon, a complete lost cause.  

We all know that RR isn't such a person..I think, but why he would endeavor to make himself out to -be- such a person is just another one of those "wtf?" questions, from where I sit. What kind of thread is this supposed to be, what kind of conversation, exactly, does RR want to have?