The sky is polka dotted.

By your logic, I'm right. Assertions pulled out of someone's ass aren't taken as fact.

Unless you can back that up, I disregard your allegations.

-S

To quote someone:

Sooooo....Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. :D

How exactly? You have proved that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, but that's about it. :D

-S

Explain why not. You said the burden of proof for someone making an assetion was on someone who found fault with it. To rebut that, I made an assertion, and now you say you disregard my assertion unless I can prove it.

You can't have it both ways, my friend.

He made a statement that sounds logical. You however provided a challenge with such a wide berth that you could fit an aircraft carrier through it. So prove it instead of beating around the bush here.

I've yet to see you do it once! You make a lot of wild claims, but once I'd like to see a source back up your claims! Just once! :salute: Two or three times would be good, but once would be fine for now.

The point being, I'm tired of your accusations while avoiding the need to provide the burden of proof. You have yet to get that mouse rolling and actually click on Google (Bing works better BTW).

Maybe it is the fact that you are funny because you challenge something without having a clue? You have absolutely no clue who has the strictest emissions! None!

Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if any country in this entire world could pass the restriction limitation on California. They constantly make jokes about Kalifornia in the newspapers about restrictions on everything from cars to lawn-mowers out there. They are trying to put catalytic converters on lawn mowers now for gods sake!

Show me a damn country that needs a damn catalytic converter for a lawn mower, and I'll back down!!! :haha::haha::haha: Good luck!

-S

So....

"He makes a claim I like. I'll accept it at face value. You make a claim I don't like. You need to prove it."

Am I right here? :roll:

No. You provided nothing to counter. Quit trying to narrow your massive scope.

Find a lawn mower with a catalytic converter yet?

-S

If I make an assertion:
"There is a invisible unicorn in my garden."
And you challenge that assertion:
"Unicorns don't exist; there can not be on in your garden"
Where do you think the burden of proof is?
If it is with "the one that challenged that assertion", then good looking
finding the invisible unicorn; it is very, very small.

The burden of proof is always with the person who makes the assertion.
If someone challenges him, it is up to person who makes the assertion
to prove them wrong, not the other way around.

It is up to me to prove I have a unicorn, not up to you to prove I don't.

No need to get worked up about Subman, guys. It appears that I've misjudged him in the past. He really does know nothing about intelligent debates or what makes them so. I gave him more credit than he deserves. Furthermore, why don't we all just disregard what he posts? Maybe then he'll go away lol.

As it stands, I'm still waiting for a citation, SteamWake.:up:

I actually think that mookie's claim about the polka-dotted sky is more credible than SteamWake's claim about the US having the toughest emission regulations. Now what, Subman?

Honestly, the facts matter. By their very nature, facts can't be something that you make up. Otherwise, what's the point of your fact if I can just make up another fact to counter it?

SteamWake makes up the "fact" that the US has the toughest emission regulations out there? Fine. I make up the "fact" that the US has the weakest emission regulations in the entire world, worse than China, India, Zimbabwe, and Somalia. If he doesn't have to back up his "fact" then I shouldn't have to back up mine.

Well played, Max.:salute:

No, SUBMAN1, you are wrong here, very wrong in fact. The burden of proof allways rests on the one making a claim, regardless of how lagical said claim is it is only evidence that can validate it. Not taking assertions at face value, regardless of wether you like them or not, is called being concistent, something you seem to have trouble with.

Edit: Damnit, should hare read the rest of hte thread before having a knee jerk reaction at subbies post, aparently everything I say in this post has llready been told him ad nauseum and he still doesnt listen, imagine that.

Without getting into the polemics* of this thread, what you have said is absolutely the truth. In the scientific and academic tradition, the party making the assertion is the same that holds the burden of proof. In the case above, it is the owner of the garden who must prove the existence of his invisible unicorn. In the scope of the original argument, the burden rests upon SteamWake.


*used very liberally here

This is the type of thing I find. No where is it called out whom has the 'tightest' regulations on emissions. Just lists on 'quantitys of emissions' most of which are not broken down per capita making the US stand out like a sore thumb.

As to regulatory actions by nation its just not documented in such a manner. However I stand by my claim that United States take more steps, spend more money, have more regulations regarding emission standards than any other nation on earth. I know people whom work in the oil industry and the anicdotes I've heard would make your jaw drop. What other nation has 'fuel blends' based not only on which state the fuel is going to but also based on season?

Sorry I cant 'prove' my claims, even more curious that no one can disprove them. Its quite curious how difficult it is to quantify this claim. I'm sure if someone could have they would have by now.

Again all I come accross is quantitys of emissions nothing regarding regulatory requirements by nation.