Based On Your Experiences, Is It Easier to Prove or Disprove Something?

[toobfreak]

...it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain unchanged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

So what do you do when you reach this impasse?

Learn to either love arguing with the wall or learn to use the IGNORE.

 

[toobfreak]

...it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain uncharged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

So what do you do when you reach this impasse?

Go on to something else.

It's not always that simple. When your opponent is presenting opinion as fact and is arguing in support of something that is not even true AND the judge buys into it, you have to have a mechanism that you can use to very precisely dismantle their false construct, as concisely as possible.

No you can't. You can dismantle their false construct until your face turns blue but it will never be acknowledged by the other person because their thinking isn't grounded in facts in the first place! All they care about is THEIR opinions, right or wrong, so you are just wasting your time.

The real point of opinions is to take all the available facts then build on them using opinion based on the available facts to fill in the gray areas of what "likely" is there. But if a person's opinions are not based on facts nor grounded in them, but rather ideology or personal emotional support, you are simply wasting time trying to "get through to them" with facts much less even considering their views.

 

[Jets]

“Attitudes are more important than facts”
-George McDonald

Too many people prove this quote correct...

Jmo

 

[Shelzin]

“Attitudes are more important than facts”
-George McDonald

Too many people prove this quote correct...

Jmo

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

Your second time there sounds like someone made you their victim of identity theft. If I'm right, I pray that you were able to get it all cleared up.

I have a completely fabricated entry on my driving record that says I was talking on a cell phone while driving.

If I had known then what I learned just a few years later I could have subpoenaed my cell phone tower records and proven that my device was not in use at the time the trooper lied and said I was using it.

When it comes to law enforcement, they are given automatic credibility by the courts, although I still would have liked it to have gone on the record that I supplied the court with electronic documents disproving/disputing the trooper's account of the events that transpired.

I don't have a cellular phone. Thank you for making me aware of just how smart a decision not having one may be.

IRL I seriously don't care to argue with people. I would rather have peace than be right.

I second this.

Neither really. As a trained logician, I know that it can be equally as easy or hard to prove or disprove something wholly based on the circumstances.

This was my first thought when thinking about my answer to the asked question. All situations can have plenty of things to consider.

God bless all four of you always!!!

Holly

So Holly, how would you go about proving to the court that you don't own a phone? I believe this is the "you can't prove a negative" that Tipsycatlover mentioned.

 

[toobfreak]

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

Your second time there sounds like someone made you their victim of identity theft. If I'm right, I pray that you were able to get it all cleared up.

I have a completely fabricated entry on my driving record that says I was talking on a cell phone while driving.

If I had known then what I learned just a few years later I could have subpoenaed my cell phone tower records and proven that my device was not in use at the time the trooper lied and said I was using it.

When it comes to law enforcement, they are given automatic credibility by the courts, although I still would have liked it to have gone on the record that I supplied the court with electronic documents disproving/disputing the trooper's account of the events that transpired.

I don't have a cellular phone. Thank you for making me aware of just how smart a decision not having one may be.

IRL I seriously don't care to argue with people. I would rather have peace than be right.

I second this.

Neither really. As a trained logician, I know that it can be equally as easy or hard to prove or disprove something wholly based on the circumstances.

This was my first thought when thinking about my answer to the asked question. All situations can have plenty of things to consider.

God bless all four of you always!!!

Holly

So Holly, how would you go about proving to the court that you don't own a phone? I believe this is the "you can't prove a negative" that Tipsycatlover mentioned.

Easy. Why would you need to unless you were wrongly accused of owning one? Then it would be up to them to produce the phone records showing an account in your name!

 

[flacaltenn]

...it is never a good sign when a person makes it clear their opinions remain uncharged REGARDLESS OF FACTS.

So what do you do when you reach this impasse?

Go on to something else.

It's not always that simple. When your opponent is presenting opinion as fact and is arguing in support of something that is not even true AND the judge buys into it, you have to have a mechanism that you can use to very precisely dismantle their false construct, as concisely as possible.

In the law, the court needs to prove your guilt. Your job is easier and that's to prove you were not on the cell phone. It's always easier to disprove accusations.

So -- at that point, why didn't you just give them the cell phone records? The time of calls and texts are all there.. Dont even have to provide an entire record -- just have the provider give you a certified statement for the couple hours either side of the citation..

Same with Tipsycat -- if you never were in the UK and dont have a passport -- it should be easy for you to submit as evidence. And then THEY have to produce proof of your passport application and purchase. At which point, you simply ask for a delay and prove that your signature or credit cards were never used for that purchase and just clam up pending your own discovery process...

Seems like there's more to these stories. -=- Maybe.....

 

[flacaltenn]

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

Your second time there sounds like someone made you their victim of identity theft. If I'm right, I pray that you were able to get it all cleared up.

I have a completely fabricated entry on my driving record that says I was talking on a cell phone while driving.

If I had known then what I learned just a few years later I could have subpoenaed my cell phone tower records and proven that my device was not in use at the time the trooper lied and said I was using it.

When it comes to law enforcement, they are given automatic credibility by the courts, although I still would have liked it to have gone on the record that I supplied the court with electronic documents disproving/disputing the trooper's account of the events that transpired.

I don't have a cellular phone. Thank you for making me aware of just how smart a decision not having one may be.

IRL I seriously don't care to argue with people. I would rather have peace than be right.

I second this.

Neither really. As a trained logician, I know that it can be equally as easy or hard to prove or disprove something wholly based on the circumstances.

This was my first thought when thinking about my answer to the asked question. All situations can have plenty of things to consider.

God bless all four of you always!!!

Holly

So Holly, how would you go about proving to the court that you don't own a phone? I believe this is the "you can't prove a negative" that Tipsycatlover mentioned.

How would you be cited for the ticket if the officer didn't SEE a cell phone in the vehicle? Isn't that something the officer needed to answer for?? Whoever was prosecuting that case needed to take a time-out and PROVE you own a cell phone and had it with you during the stop..

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The second time was more serious. I was listed as being at a business meeting in London, England. I was to testify as to statements made at that meeting. I was never at that meeting. I was never in London and I don't have a passport. There was a wealth of evidence that I was indeed there. There were hotel bills, receipts, telephone records, eye witness statements and receipts and boarding passes for plane tickets from Los Angeles to London. Except I was never there. I was ordered by the High Court to appear and give evidence. I have no passport so I could not appear. I know how Michael Cohen felt when he was supposedly in the Czech Republic and was never there. I don't know what happened. It seemed like they just gave up and left me alone.

Especially today where we are awash in an ocean of fakery, it is easier to prove something than disprove it when someone else is creating evidence.

Your second time there sounds like someone made you their victim of identity theft. If I'm right, I pray that you were able to get it all cleared up.

I have a completely fabricated entry on my driving record that says I was talking on a cell phone while driving.

If I had known then what I learned just a few years later I could have subpoenaed my cell phone tower records and proven that my device was not in use at the time the trooper lied and said I was using it.

When it comes to law enforcement, they are given automatic credibility by the courts, although I still would have liked it to have gone on the record that I supplied the court with electronic documents disproving/disputing the trooper's account of the events that transpired.

I don't have a cellular phone. Thank you for making me aware of just how smart a decision not having one may be.

IRL I seriously don't care to argue with people. I would rather have peace than be right.

I second this.

Neither really. As a trained logician, I know that it can be equally as easy or hard to prove or disprove something wholly based on the circumstances.

This was my first thought when thinking about my answer to the asked question. All situations can have plenty of things to consider.

God bless all four of you always!!!

Holly

So Holly, how would you go about proving to the court that you don't own a phone? I believe this is the "you can't prove a negative" that Tipsycatlover mentioned.

Easy. Why would you need to unless you were wrongly accused of owning one? Then it would be up to them to produce the phone records showing an account in your name!

Exactly. Thank you. I will admit that a cellular phone is in my house, but it isn't mine, the account isn't mine, and my money has never been what is used to pay its bill.

God bless you and NewsVine_Mariyam always!!!

Holly

 

[Missourian]

A U.S. Message Board member recently pointed out to me that irrespective of what anyone else thinks, he's entitled to his own opinion. To my surprise, after I looked up the word "opinion" in the dictionary, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I struggle so much with some of the opinions of others is because they state their opinion as fact or as if their opinions, even when uninformed are as a valid as those based in fact or knowledge. Thus the rise of "alternative facts" in a sense.

A fact is something that can be proven or disproved, an opinion is apparently anything you want it to be. What is easier for you all, proving something or disproving it and why? I think it it often easier for me to disprove than prove but that may just be my default, not that it's actually easier.

I've seen it written that outside of court it doesn't really matter. What say you all?

Folks aren't interested it truth or facts... in fact they'll do whatever it takes not to admit they're wrong...

Two Men Arrested In Assault On Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick

Two men arrested for assaulting Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Two men have been arrested and charged for assaulting US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died after responding on January 6 to hundreds of rioters who stormed the Capitol, the Justice Department announced Monday...

www.usmessageboard.com