Original publication on SLC Craigslist, June 15, 2016, in response to a post by Utardia, a “writer”, regurgitator of marxist/liberal climate dogma and deception.
Part two, applying science to compare and contrast a democracy versus a constitutional republic.
Do we need to define “rational”?
A witness to anything helps clarify and also helps debunk. Clarity, truth is the goal.
When we look at the Constitution and the Amendments we find standard for many things.
A standard establishes common communication. Standards in science, must also be established otherwise we have no comparisons, no observations, and nothing obvious. Without the obvious and irrefutable, the burden of proof of science is not met, and the doubt rules.
It must be so because everything at any given point is based upon and operates around established truths: truths that for the moment seem to explain and predict.
Real science does not ask people to adjust to something not proved or unreal. Science does not, for example, ask people to prepare for dragon fire that does not exist, and the same is prevalent in all science, including unsubstantiated, standard-less global hoaxing.
Why do We, the People, have a Bill of Rights? Is the Bill of Rights for government? Government is a thing. It is a thing, like a tool, used by We, the People. Government, in America, a Constitutional Republic, is not a tool for politicians to use. The Bill of Rights establishes, quite clearly, that the amendments require burdensome effort to change. OUR traditions and OUR working laws, today, now, cannot be changed without due proof of necessity.
The burden of proof is that law requires authority; authority granted by We, the People, NOT government, to prove need.
Take the right to be presumed innocent before the law. This simple amendment: this one in particular, establishes that the individual is supreme. The Rights in the Bill of Rights, are for the individual, not a conglomerate government collective of rulers.
The burden of proof, wherein guilt must be proved without doubt, is what sets every single person in America in the same status before the law. So none, in any position, can suppress the law, and create a slave, or a slave class by extortion of law.
The burden of proof applies in all things in a free society.
Realistically, there are few truly free societies in the whole history of the world, but we can see two from which We, the People, can draw experience and guidance.
The Magna Carta, an Anglo origination in 1215 England, was the beginning of a freedom the world had never seen. It was a freedom for all peoples, not just a political class. In fact it was designed to oppose and control a political class.
You could call monarchy, dictatorship, and oligarchy, a political class. No matter what the pretentious name, a political class is a ravaging organization exploiting, using, and killing slaves itself, themselves, create.
We, in America have not fallen into slavery. Slavery has been thrust upon us. Slavery was created by diabolical, psychopathic “people”. Every single democrat politico in America, is a psychopathic monarchist. Heavy claim, but to actually join the democrat party one must surely know the democrat party is involved in a push for dictatorial oligarchy. Nobody falls into slavery by default. Nobody falls into a position of being a slave owner or master, by mistake either.
The second I know I have ill-gotten gains, taken by force or legal force, is the second I know I have unjustly profited by someone’s efforts. That is theft: it is slavery.
The burden of proof in science, is no different. It is meant to prove beyond doubt, that something is true.
How can one be sure of truth if it is not proven beyond doubt? The foundation for rationality is truth beyond doubt.
A scientist is required to make a claim of suspected truth.
I believe, for example, that coffee makes one jittery. I make a claim, called a thesis or hypothesis. A hundred, a thousand people can refute my claim, and do so rationally. All they have to say, is they don’t believe it. Their opinion is valid as opinion. A million people can refute my claim and my claim is nothing, yet.
If I were to take these million people, subject half of them to drinking one cup of coffee in the morning, while half get no coffee, and then I measure and quantify the observations, collecting them into obvious results, then I have exercised scientific methodology.
In this case where utardia claims I need to provide proof when it is he/her/it that makes the challenge against established science, utardia misses the establishment of reality, as usual, and thus remains in a state of suspended reality, refusing to change to the obvious.
I am not required to bend to fantasy while already living in established reality.
But this is the fraud the dem/lib/progressives continually try to ram down Conservative America’s throat.
I have no burden to believe a single thing utardia or any of the global hoaxers, I mean warmers, claim until I see rational measurements, results taken from the obvious and irrefutable.
We have no results of anything until something is done to produce results. Making a model does not qualify. Making predictions without measurements does not qualify.
I can claim europeans have large noses. How do I measure large? Is “large” a comparative? If so, what is the standard upon which I decide to employ? Is my standard rational, or noticeable, measurable?
If I claim europeans have large noses, is it logical I describe how much bigger they are? Is it logical and fair that I describe bigger? Is bigger longer, wider, taller, more sunk in the head?
The burden of proof is all mine.
All the sophist pretenses by dem/libs, utardia sub-intelligent dog, for example, pretending to be smart, does not provide a shred of evidence and certainly meets no burden of proof, or even a simple claim or theory to precede finding and proving the hopeful obvious. The dem/libs have never made it to the first stages of science: theory, hypothesis and intelligent claim.
Who are the dem/libs trying to deceive?