Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

That is what I, based on the Roman Law, have been advocating all the way.

Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?

See the three prior answers.  The fourth is the same.

[Ken B]

That is what I, based on the Roman Law, have been advocating all the way.

Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?

Neither. Todd must prove you have defamed him by a preponderance of the evidence. That is a palpable tipping of the scales, not remotely close to beyond reasonable doubt.
The standard is higher in some cases. If Todd is Trump, a public figure, it is higher. There are other cases that call for a higher standard too, but for garden variety cases this is it.

[Florestan]

See the three prior answers.  The fourth is the same.

Okay, then. Once and for all: if the burden of proof is on the person denying the accusation, then this is no justice at all. Better said, this is Communist justice: any person shall be presumed guilty until found innocent by a final decision of the court.

[Todd]

Okay, then. Once and for all: if the burden of proof is on the person denying the accusation, then this is no justice at all. Better said, this is Communist justice: any person shall be presumed guilty until found innocent by a final decision of the court.

There's nothing "once and for all" about it.  There are two different standards under discussion, which by definition means it's not "once and for all".  Simple stuff here.

[Florestan]

There's nothing "once and for all" about it.  There are two different standards under discussion, which by definition means it's not "once and for all".  Simple stuff here.

Forgive me for being such a pain in the ass: I accuse you, Todd, of being  a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to the court. Who must prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, I the accuser or you the defendant?

[Ken B]

Forgive me for being such a pain in the ass: I accuse you, Todd, of being  a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to the court. Who must prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, I the accuser or you the defendant?

If you are a prosecutor then you must. If you are suing Todd for damages, as you were the child, you must prove it but not beyond a reasonable doubt, only by preponderance of the evidence. If Todd sues you for defamation then he must, again by preponderance.

[Madiel]

You are a lawyer, right? Right! Then please tell me, on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall? On the one who says that the claim is true? Precisely, according to the Roman Law handbook (if I´m mistaken, please correct me). So, it is not for me to find any such calculation, but for you to provide one.

Well done. While I've been asleep, you've had everyone chasing this rabbit for a couple of pages now.

My answer is that your question "on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall" is so broad as to be meaningless. First thing to point out is that we're not talking about a court of law. Second thing to point out is the broad range of things that are so basic that any requirement to "prove" them can be established by simply stating them in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.  People aren't generally asked to prove that something that's been dropped fell to the ground. They're not even generally asked to prove which side of the road they were driving on - the working assumption is that they were driving on the usual side.

Third thing to point out is that you've asserted what the law is without providing a link.

Fourth thing to do is to provide you with a single one of the many links that says a movie was carbon neutral. From 10 years ago. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-movie-idUSN2639166020061027

Your alleged skepticism on this particular point is absurdly wilful. You're not being skeptical about global warming, you're being skeptical about whether or not someone is capable of adding up a bunch of estimates of the greenhouse gas emitted by activities.  That's the equivalent of being skeptical that someone can calculate the number of calories in your food, or do the sums as to how many calories you ought to eat per day to maintain your current weight. 

It's the equivalent of denying the possibility that anyone would be able to work out how much exercise you need to do to work off a chocolate bar. http://www.kidspot.com.au/health/wellbeing/exercise/how-much-exercise-does-it-take-to-burn-off-your-fave-foods   

Heck, it's the equivalent of being skeptical that anyone could calculate how much money you'll have to earn to pay off a debt.

[Florestan]

If you are a prosecutor then you must.

Obviously.

If you are suing Todd for damages, as you were the child, you must prove it but not beyond a reasonable doubt, only by preponderance of the evidence.

Obviously.

If Todd sues you for defamation then he must, again by preponderance.

That is illogical. It is not for him to prove he is not a child molester, but for his accuser to prove he is.

[ritter]

That is illogical. It is not for him to prove he is not a child molester, but for his accuser to prove he is.

It appears perfectly logical to me...the burden of the proof is only applicable in a court of law. You defamate me, say, in a newspaper (as happens every day in every country around the world). You don't have to prove anything...I take you to court for slander. Now I am accusing you of an offense, and it is up to me to prove you gullty of the accusation I've made...

[Madiel]

It appears perfectly logical to me...the burden of the proof is only applicable in a court of law. You defamate me, say, in a newspaper (as happens every day in every country around the world). You don't have to prove anything...I take you to court for slander. Now I am accusing you of an offense, and it is up to me to prove you gullty of the accusation I've made...

Yep.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I take you to court for slander. Now I am accusing you of an offense, and it is up to me to prove you gullty of the accusation I've made...

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. When is that not so?

[ritter]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. When is that not so?

Apparently it is not so in Romania  , and the concepts of "slander" and "accustion in a court of law" appear to be one and the same thing there....

[Madiel]

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. When is that not so?

When you're Florestan and your aim is simply to deny absolutely anything that anyone else says because you've lost sight of the actual goal, and are focused on the process of keeping a whole lot of people distracted.

[Ken B]

Obviously.

Obviously.

That is illogical. It is not for him to prove he is not a child molester, but for his accuser to prove he is.

It makes more sense when you realize this trial is about defamation not pederasty. To prove the tort of defamation Todd must prove you made a false factual claim. So he must prove the falsity.

Look. When you accuse Todd on TV you do not ask the court to punish him. When he sues you he asks the court to punish you. The burden is always on the person asking the court to punish. As it should be.

[Madiel]

What I forgot to add to my main post, Florestan, is how neatly you sidestepped the fact that I provided you with links to a method of calculation to continue demanding that I provide you with links.

There is, of course, absolutely no logical basis for arguing that one can't use the same exact mathematics for every kind of activity. To continue with the food analogy, if I provided you with an explanation of how the energy content of a chocolate bar is calculated, you'd apparently insist that this isn't acceptable because it doesn't mean anyone would know how to calculate the energy content of fruit and vegetables.

Well done. I almost missed that part of your slight of hand where you didn't quote the part of my post that provided you with links, and continued to demand links. You in fact said precisely nothing about the links that I did provide.

Having provided you with evidence of how calculations of energy are done, the evidentiary onus is on you to prove that the material I've provided is false. Have fun.

[ritter]

When you're Florestan and your aim is simply to deny absolutely anything that anyone else says because you've lost sight of the actual goal, and are focused on the process of keeping a whole lot of people distracted.

On whom falls the burden of the proof of that accusation? Or is it defamation?...I'm soooo confused 

[(poco) Sforzando]

It makes more sense when you realize this trial is about defamation not pederasty. To prove the tort of defamation Todd must prove you made a false factual claim. So he must prove the falsity.

Look. When you accuse Todd on TV you do not ask the court to punish him. When he sues you he asks the court to punish you. The burden is always on the person asking the court to punish. As it should be.

Well, maybe this contretemps is making more sense to some of you than it is to me, but as far as I'm aware it's always the plaintiff - no matter what the nature of the suit - who must meet the burden of proof, else the defendant is not guilty. If this is not the case in anyone's eyes, kindly explain.

[Brian]

Well, maybe this contretemps is making more sense to some of you than it is to me, but as far as I'm aware it's always the plaintiff - no matter what the nature of the suit - who must meet the burden of proof, else the defendant is not guilty. If this is not the case in anyone's eyes, kindly explain.

Florestan is conflating the legal accusation - of slander - with the slanderous accusation - of necrophilia or child molestation. Just another of the illogics with which to torture us.

[(poco) Sforzando]

2. Who cares about Roman Law?

I imagine the Romans do.

[Madiel]

Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?

Ah. I see the trick here.  "The" case.

Which case? There are two.

CASE ONE: "I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The police arrest you, you are charged with child molestation and brought to trial. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?"

ANSWER ONE: Neither. The State must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The person who made the accusation is not a party to the case, merely a witness.

CASE TWO: "I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. You take me to court suing me for defamation. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?"

ANSWER TWO: Neither. I must prove that you have defamed me on the balance of probabilities.


There's a whole lot of manufactured outrage here based on conflating two separate issues into one "case" when they aren't at all. All these claims about what Roman law says are bunkum as well of course, because Roman law understands perfectly well that a general principle about having to prove a claim can only be applied once you identify which claim must be proven.

"You are a child molester" and "You said that I am a child molester" are two separate claims with entirely separate processes. Simple as that. If I sue you for defamation and fail, all that will happen to me is that I won't get any money. I will not be carted off to jail.