Except in Logic and Mathematics, "proof" is a personal thing. For example, there is ample and undeniable proof that your hero donald trump is a corrupt, criminal piece of shit, and ample undeniable proof that your other hero, Putin, is a monstrous war criminal, but because you're cognitively and morally deficient those are proofs you will not accept as valid. As for the second part of your post, the Keynesian idea behind increased government stimulus is to put working capital into the hands of consumers, thus increasing demand which would then spur production. You might glean the validity of the argument by imagining a society with zero money, thus no easy medium for exchange, thus limited demand, thus limited economic activity.
which is to say its only a useful concept in logic and math and your "personal proof" is fucking stupid
dont need to spur demand and production with stimulus. need to simply allow people back to work. economy rights itself when unrestricted from lockdowns. no need to destroy the money of black people with massive inflation i mean, is this destructive current inflation not evidence enough? its the worst in 40 years!
and you think juries are meant to analyze cases using "personal proof" as opposed to logic? da fuck ?
This idea that there wasn't enough "capital" for citizens is utter nonsense Rex. The amount of capital (money) was never the problem.
Except coincidentally, juries do NOT use formal Logic, i.e. the type used to drive computer algorithms. I said "Logic", capitalized, the formal scientific discipline where proofs are precisely derived from premises and mathematical rules, and clearly distinguished that from the "personal proofs" of informal logic employed in daily life and courtrooms. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
of course nobody said they did. they use basic logic like deductive reasoning etc. i see. and this "personal proof" of yours about trump being a criminal dictator or whatever, its pretty strong proof then? oh shit sounds like the walls are closing in again. some rando bloke has personal proof. you shoulda told the mueller people you had proof all along. curious, i have been on juries. never heard of "personal proof". both normal juries and a grand jury. musta been an oversight by the attorneys there. also i have a degreen in international law. we never learned about personal proof. must be LSU is a shit state school that leaves shit out. nothing i am fine, thanks for asking. i am not the topic though. please try to concentrate and stay on topic.
So, you don't think that different persons can disagree on proof? And circumstances that constitute proof of one thing for Person A might constitute proof of something else for Person B? HAPPENS ALL THE TIME within the informal logic of juries. Happens all the time in boardrooms. Happens all the time in marriages. Happens all the time. LMAO. I'm going to answer my own question: you are seriously fucking stupid. THAT's what's wrong with you. And you know, I wouldn't be this direct except that what I posted would draw ZERO disagreement from an intelligent person. It's such a GIVEN that I never imagined a single bit of objection, not even from you.
