I think that to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that your plates are not trying to kill you" to "I don't have to prove that you have no right to smash your plates over my head in 'self-defense'," however, is a pretty logical progression.
Of course. But, again, while I am with you as far as that goes, that is not the proposition to which the argument about proving a negative has been applied. If you have no problem with people who simply believe they sense God, but only with people who behave unreasonably in defence of their belief, then the unreasonable behaviour itself is both an easier and a more appropriate target than the belief which is also shared by the innocent.
Conversely, to continue to attempt to discredit that belief (as for instance by trying to establish here that there is no need to disprove it) suggests that your problem, despite what you say, is not exclusively with those who are prejudiced against you, but with all believers whether militant or otherwise. And there we differ.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 03:54 am (UTC)Of course. But, again, while I am with you as far as that goes, that is not the proposition to which the argument about proving a negative has been applied. If you have no problem with people who simply believe they sense God, but only with people who behave unreasonably in defence of their belief, then the unreasonable behaviour itself is both an easier and a more appropriate target than the belief which is also shared by the innocent.
Conversely, to continue to attempt to discredit that belief (as for instance by trying to establish here that there is no need to disprove it) suggests that your problem, despite what you say, is not exclusively with those who are prejudiced against you, but with all believers whether militant or otherwise. And there we differ.